Skip to main content

Full text of "Fear God and take your own part"

See other formats




Take  Your  Own  Part 


Theodore  Roosevelt 


Copyright.  1916, 

Copyright,  1914, 

Copyright,  1915, 

Copyright,  1915  and  1916, 


Over  two  months  have  gone  by  since  this  book 
was  published  and  during  those  two  months  af- 
fairs have  moved  rapidly,  and  at  every  point  the 
march  of  events  has  shown  the  need  of  reducing 
to  practice  every  principle  herein  laid  down. 

The  monotonous  succession  of  outrages  upon 
our  people  by  the  Mexicans  was  broken  by  a  spec- 
tacular raid  of  Villa  into  American  territory, 
which  resulted  in  the  death  of  half  a  dozen  Amer- 
ican soldiers  and  an  equal  number  of  civilians. 
We  accordingly  asked  Carranza  to  permit  us  to 
assist  him  in  hunting  down  Villa  and  Carranza 
grudgingly  gave  the  permission.  We  failed  to 
get  Villa;  we  had  to  fight  the  Villistas  and  at 
one  moment  also  the  Carranzistas ;  we  lost  valu- 
able lives,  and  at  this  time  of  writing  the  expedi- 
tion is  halted  and  it  is  announced  at  Washington 
that  it  is  being  considered  whether  or  not  it 
shall  be  withdrawn.  We  have  not  been  able  to 
scrape  together  the  troops  and  equipment  neces- 
sary to  punish  a  single  bandit.  The  professional 
pacificists  and  professional  antipreparedness  ad- 
vocates are  invited  to  consider  these  facts.  We 
are  told  we  have  kept  the  peace  in  Mexico.  As  a 
matter  of  fact  we  have  twice  been  at  war  in  Mex- 


ico  within  the  last  two  years.  Our  failure  to  pre- 
pare, our  failure  to  take  action  of  a  proper  sort 
on  the  Mexican  border  has  not  averted  blood- 
shed; it  has  invited  bloodshed.  It  has  cost  the 
loss  of  more  lives  than  were  lost  in  the  Spanish 
War.  Our  Mexican  failure  is  merely  the  natural 
fruit  of  the  policies  of  pacificism  and  anti-pre- 

Since  the  first  edition  of  this  book  was  pub- 
lished, President  Wilson  has  notified  Germany 
and  has  informed  Congress  that  if  Germany  con- 
tinues submarine  warfare  against  merchant  and 
passenger  steamers  as  she  has  carried  it  on  for 
the  last  year  America  will  take  action.  Appar- 
ently the  first  step  is  to  be  the  sundering  of  diplo- 
matic relations.  Such  sunderance  would,  of 
course,  mean  nothing  if  the  submarine  war  was 
continued.  Merely  to  recall  our  Ambassador  if 
men,  women  and  children  are  being  continually 
killed  on  the  high  seas  and  to  take  no  further 
action  would  be  about  as  effective  as  the  conduct 
of  a  private  individual  who,  when  another  man 
slapped  his  wife's  face,  retaliated  by  not  bowing 
to  the  man.  Therefore,  either  Germany  will 
have  to  surrender  on  the  point  at  issue,  or  this 
protest  of  ours  will  prove  to  have  meant  nothing, 
or  else  there  must  be  a  war.  Fourteen  months 
have  elapsed  since  we  sent  our  "strict  account- 
ability" note  to  Germany  demanding  that  there 

•  • 



be  no  submarine  warfare  that  should  endanger 
the  lives  of  American  citizens.  She  did  not  be- 
lieve that  we  meant  what  we  said  and  the  war- 
fare has  gone  on.  If  she  now  stops,  it  will  be 
proof  positive  that  she  would  have  stopped  at  the 
very  outset  had  we  made  it  evident  that  we  meant 
what  we  said.  In  such  case  the  loss  of  thousands 
of  lives  of  men,  women  and  children  will  be  at 
our  doors  for  having  failed  to  make  it  evident 
that  we  meant  what  we  said.  If  she  does  not 
stop,  then  we  shall  have  to  go  to  war  or  back 
down;  and  in  that  case  it  must  be  remembered 
that  during  these  fourteen  months — and  during 
the  preceding  seven  months — we  have  not  pre- 
pared in  naval,  military  or  industrial  matters  in 
the  smallest  degree.  The  peace-at-any-price  men, 
the  professional  pacificists  shrieked  loudly  that 
to  prepare  would  be  to  invite  war.  The  Adminis- 
tration accepted  their  view  and  has  not  prepared. 
The  result  is  that  we  are  near  to  war.  The  blind- 
est can  now  see  that  had  we,  in  August  1914 
when  the  great  war  began,  ourselves  begun  ac- 
tively to  prepare,  we  would  now  be  in  a  position 
such  that  every  one  knew  our  words  would  be 
made  good  by  our  deeds.  In  such  case  no  nation 
would  dream  of  interfering  with  us  or  of  refus- 
ing our  demands;  and  each  of  the  warring  na- 
tions would  vie  with  the  others  to  keep  us  out  of 
the  war.  Immediate  preparedness  at  the  outset 



of  the  war  would  have  meant  that  there  would 
never  have  been  the  necessity  for  sending  the 
"strict  accountability"  note.  It  would  have 
meant  that  there  never  would  have  been  the  mur- 
der of  the  thousands  of  men,  women  and  children 
on  the  high  seas.  It  would  have  meant  that  we 
would  now  be  sure  of  peace  for  ourselves.  It 
would  have  meant  that  we  would  now  be  ready 
to  act  the  part  of  peacemaker  for  others. 

Sagamore  Hill,  April  2^.th,  ipi6. 



This  book  is  dedicated  to  the  memory  of 
Julia  Ward  Howe 

because  in  the  vital  matters  fundamentally  affecting 
the  life  of  the  Republic,  she  was  as  good  a  citizen 
of  the  Republic  as  Washington  and  Lincoln  them- 
selves. She  was  in  the  highest  sense  a  good  wife 
and  a  good  mother;  and  therefore  she  fulfilled  the 
primary  law  of  our  being.  She  brought  up  with  de- 
voted care  and  wisdom  her  sons  and  her  daughters. 
At  the  same  time  she  fulfilled  her  full  duty  to  the 
commonwealth  from  the  public  standpoint.  She 
preached  righteousness  and  she  practised  righteous- 
ness. She  sought  the  peace  that  comes  as  the  hand- 
maiden of  well  doing.  She  preached  that  stern  and 
lofty  courage  of  soul  which  shrinks  neither  from  war 
nor  from  any  other  form  of  suffering  and  hardship 
and  danger  if  it  is  only  thereby  that  justice  can  be 
served.  She  embodied  that  trait  more  essential  than 
any  other  in  the  make-up  of  the  men  and  women  of 
this  Republic — the  valor  of  righteousness. 



Mine  eyes  have  seen  the  glory  of  the  coming  of 
the  Lord; 

He  is  trampling  out  the  vintage  ivhere  the  grapes 
of  wrath  are  stored; 

He  hath  loosed  the  fateful  lightning  of  His  ter- 
rible swift  sword, 

His  truth  is  marching  on. 

I  have  seen  Him  in  the  watch-fires  of  a  hundred 

circling  camps; 
They  have  builded  Him  an  altar  in  the  evening 

dews  and  damps; 
I  can  read  His  righteous  sentence  by  the  dim  and 

flaring  lamps, 
His  day  is  marching  on. 

I  have  read  a  fiery  gospel,  writ  in  burnished  rows 

of  steel: 
"As  ye  deal  with  my  contemners,  so  with  you  my 

grace  shall  deal; 
Let  the  Hero,  born  of  woman,  crush  the  serpent 

with  His  heel, 
Since  God  is  marching  on." 



He  has  sounded  forth  the  trumpet  that  shall 
never  call  retreat; 

He  is  sifting  out  the  hearts  of  men  before  His 

Oh,  be  swift,  my  soul,  to  answer  Him!  be  jubi- 
lant, my  feet, 

Our  God  is  marching  on. 

In  the  beauty  of  the  lilies,  Christ  was  born  across 

the  sea, 
With  a  glory  in  His  bosom  that  transfigures  you 

and  me; 
As  he  died  to  make  men  holy,  let  us  die  to  make 

men  free, 
While  God  is  marching  on. 



This  book  is  based  primarily  upon,  and  mainly  con- 
sists of,  matter  contained  in  articles' I  have  written  in 
the  Metropolitan  Magazine  during  the  past  fourteen 
months.  It  also  contains  or  is  based  upon  an  article 
contributed  to  the  Wheeler  Syndicate,  a  paper  sub- 
mitted to  the  American  Sociological  Congress,  and 
one  or  two  speeches  and  public  statements.  In  addi- 
tion there  is  much  new  matter/  including  most  of  the 
first  chapter.  In  part  the  old  matter  has  been  rear- 
ranged. For  the  most  part,  I  have  left  it  unchanged. 
In  the  few  instances  where  what  I  spoke  was  in  the 
nature  of  prophecy  as  to  what  might  or  would  happen 
during  the  last  year,  the  prophecy  has  been  fulfilled, 
and  I  have  changed  the  tense  but  not  the  purport  of 
the  statements.  I  have  preferred  to  run  the  risk  of 
occasional  repetition  rather  than  to  attempt  rewriting 
certain  of  the  chapters,  because  whatever  of  value 
these  chapters  have  had  lay  in  the  fact  that  in  them  I 
was  applying-  eternal  principles  of  right  to  concrete 
cases  which  were  of  vital  importance  at  the  moment, 
instead  of  merely  treating  these  eternal  principles  as 
having  their  place  forever  in  the  realm  of  abstract 
thought  and  never  to  be  reduced  to  action.  I  was 
speaking  to  and  for  the  living  present  about  the  imme- 
diate needs  of  the  present. 



The  principles  set  forth  in  this  book  are  simply  the 
principles  of  true  Americanism  within  and  without  our 
own  borders,  the  principles  which,  according  to  my 
abilities,  I  have  preached  and,  according  to  my  abil- 
ities, I  have  practised  for  the  thirty-five  years  since, 
as  a  very  young  man,  I  first  began  to  take  an  active 
interest  in  American  history  and  in  American  political 

Sagamore  Hill,  February  3,  1916. 




BATTLE  HYMN  OF  THE  REPUBLIC    .        .        .      vii 
INTRODUCTORY  NOTE        .         .  .         .       ix 


I.     FEAR  GOD  AND  TAKE  YOUR  OWN  PART       15 

VALUES  .  .  .  .  .  -59 






ATED AMERICANISM  ....     138 




SAM          ......     205 

STILLED  IN  MEXICO  .  .  .  .231 

IX.     WHEN    Is    AN    AMERICAN    NOT    AN 


X.     THE  JAPANESE  IN  KOREA     .        .        .     293 
XI.     THE  PANAMA  BLACKMAIL  TREATY      .     305 




XII.  CONCLUSION  .....  343 







READERS  of  Borrow  will  recognize  in  the 
heading  of  this  chapter,  which  I  have  also 
chosen  for  the  title  of  the  book,  a  phrase  used  by 
the  heroine  of  Lavengro. 

Fear  God  ;  and  take  your  own  part  !  Fear  God, 
in  the  true  sense  of  the  word,  means  love  God, 
respect  God,  honor  God  ;  and  all  of  this  can  only 
be  done  by  loving  our  neighbor,  treating  him 
justly  and  mercifully,  and  in  all  ways  endeavor- 
ing to  protect  him  from  injustice  and  cruelty  ; 
thus  obeying,  as  far  as  our  human  frailty  will 
permit,  the  great  and  immutable  law  of  right- 

We  fear  God  when  we  do  justice  to  and  de- 
mand justice  for  the  men  within  our  own  bor- 
ders. We  are  false  to  the  teachings  of  righteous- 
ness if  we  do  not  do  such  justice  and  demand 




READERS  of  Borrow  will  recognize  in  the 
heading  of  this  chapter,  which  I  have  also 
chosen  for  the  title  of  the  book,  a  phrase  used  by 
the  heroine  of  Lavengro. 

Fear  God  ;  and  take  your  own  part  !  Fear  God, 
in  the  true  sense  of  the  word,  means  love  God, 
respect  God,  honor  God;  and  all  of  this  can  only 
be  done  by  loving  our  neighbor,  treating  him 
justly  and  mercifully,  and  in  all  ways  endeavor- 
ing to  protect  him  from  injustice  and  cruelty  ; 
thus  obeying,  as  far  as  our  human  frailty  will 
permit,  the  great  and  immutable  law  of  right- 

We  fear  God  when  we  do  justice  to  and  de- 
mand justice  for  the  men  within  our  own  bor- 
ders. We  are  false  to  the  teachings  of  righteous- 
ness if  we  do  not  do  such  justice  and  demand 



such  justice.  We  must  do  it  to  the  weak,  and  we 
must  do  it  to  the  strong.  We  do  not  fear  God 
if  we  show  mean  envy  and  hatred  of  those  who 
are  better  off  than  we  are;  and  still  less  do  we 
fear  God  if  we  show  a  base  arrogance  towards 
and  selfish  lack  of  consideration  for  those  who 
are  less  well  off.  We  must  apply  the  same  stand- 
ard of  conduct  alike  to  man  and  to  woman,  to 
rich  man  and  to  poor  man,  to  employer  and  em- 
ployee. We  must  organize  our  social  and  indus- 
trial life  so  as  to  secure  a  reasonable  equality  of 
opportunity  for  all  men  to  show  the  stuff  that  is 
in  them,  and  a  reasonable  division  among  those 
engaged  in  industrial  work  of  the  reward  for 
that  industrial  work,  a  division  which  shall  take 
into  account  all  the  qualities  that  contribute  to 
the  necessary  success.  We  must  demand  hon- 
esty, justice,  mercy,  truthfulness,  in  our  dealings 
with  one  another  within  our  own  borders.  Out- 
side of  our  own  borders  we  must  treat  other  na- 
tions as  we  would  wish  to  be  treated  in  return, 
judging  each  in  any  given  crisis  as  we  ourselves 
ought  to  be  judged — that  is,  by  our  conduct  in 
that  crisis.  If  they  do  ill,  we  show  that  we  fear 
God  when  we  sternly  bear  testimony  against 
them  and  oppose  them  in  any  way  and  to  what- 
ever extent  the  needs  require.  If  they  do  well, 
we  must  not  wrong  them  ourselves.  Finally,  if 
we  are  really  devoted  to  a  lofty  ideal  we  must 



in  so  far  as  our  strength  permits  aid  them  if 
they  are  wronged  by  others.  When  we  sit  idly 
by  while  Belgium  is  being  overwhelmed,  and  roll- 
ing up  our  eyes  prattle  with  unctuous  self-right- 
eousness about  "the  duty  of  neutrality,"  we  show 
that  we  do  not  really  fear  God;  on  the  contrary, 
we  show  an  odious  fear  of  the  devil,  and  a  mean 
readiness  to  serve  him. 

But  in  addition  to  fearing  God,  it  is  necessary 
that  we  should  be  able  and  ready  to  take  our 
own  part.  The  man  who  cannot  take  his  own 
part  is  a  nuisance  in  the  community,  a  source  of 
weakness,  an  encouragement  to  wrongdoers  and 
an  added  burden  to  the  men  who  wish  to  do  what 
is  right.  If  he  cannot  take  his  own  part,  then 
somebody  else  has  to  take  it  for  him;  and  this 
means  that  his  weakness  and  cowardice  and  inef- 
ficiency place  an  added  burden  on  some  other 
man  and  make  that  other  man's  strength  by  just 
so  much  of  less  avail  to  the  community  as  a 
whole.  No  man  can  take  the  part  of  any  one 
else  unless  he  is  able  to  take  his  own  part.  This 
is  just  as  true  of  nations  as  of  men.  A  nation 
that  cannot  take  its  own  part  is  at  times  almost 
as  fertile  a  source  of  mischief  in  the  world  at 
large  as  is  a  nation  which  does  wrong  to  others, 
for  its  very  existence  puts  a  premium  on  such 
wrongdoing.  Therefore,  a  nation  must  fit  itself 
to  defend  its  honor  and  interest  against  outside 


aggression ;  and  this  necessarily  means  that  in  a 
free  democracy  every  man  fit  for  citizenship 
must  be  trained  so  that  he  can  do  his  full  duty 
to  the  nation  in  war  no  less  than  in  peace. 

Unless  we  are  thorough-going  Americans  and 
unless  our  patriotism  is  part  of  the  very  fiber 
of  our  being,  we  can  neither  serve  God  nor  take 
our  own  part.  Whatever  may  be  the  case  in  an 
infinitely  remote  future,  at  present  no  people  can 
render  any  service  to  humanity  unless  as  a  people 
they  feel  an  intense  sense  of  national  cohesion 
and  solidarity.  The  man  who  loves  other  nations 
as  much  as  he  does  his  own,  stands  on  a  par  with 
the  man  who  loves  other  women  as  much  as  he 
does  his  own  wife.  The  United  States  can  ac- 
complish little  for  mankind,  save  in  so  far  as 
within  its  borders  it  develops  an  intense  spirit 
of  Americanism.  A  flabby  cosmopolitanism,  es- 
pecially if  it  expresses  itself  through  a  flabby  pa- 
cifism, is  not  only  silly,  but  degrading.  It  rep- 
resents national  emasculation.  The  professors 
of  every  form  of  hyphenated  Americanism  are 
as  truly  the  foes  of  this  country  as  if  they  dwelled 
outside  its  borders  and  made  active  war  against 
it.  This  is  not  a  figure  of  speech,  or  a  hyperbolic 
statement.  The  leaders  of  the  hyphenated- 
American  movement  in  this  country  (who  dur- 
ing the  last  eighteen  months  have  been  the  pro- 
fessional German- Americans  and  Austro-Ameri- 



cans)  are  also  leaders  in  the  movement  against 
preparedness.  I  have  before  me  a  little  pamphlet, 
circulated  by  a  "German-American"  organiza- 
tion, consisting  of  articles  written  by  a  German- 
American  for  a  paper  which  claims  to  be  the  lead- 
ing German  paper  in  Illinois.  This  pamphlet  is 
a  bitter  attack  upon  the  policy  of  preparedness 
for  the  United  States,  and  a  slanderous  assault 
on  those  advocating  this  American  policy.  It  is, 
therefore,  an  effort  in  the  interest  of  Germany 
to  turn  the  United  States  into  a  larger  Belgium — 
an  easy  prey  for  Germany  whenever  Germany 
desires  to  seize  it.  These  professional  German- 
Americans  and  Pro-Germans  are  Anti-American 
to  the  core.  They  play  the  part  of  traitors,  pure 
and  simple.  Once  it  was  true  that  this  country 
could  not  endure  half  free  and  half  slave.  To- 
day it  is  true  that  it  can  not  endure  half  Ameri- 
can and  half  foreign.  The  hyphen  is  incompati- 
ble with  patriotism. 

Patriotism  should  be  an  integral  part  of  our 
every  feeling  at  all  times,  for  it  is  merely  another 
name  for  those  qualities  of  soul  which  make  a 
man  in  peace  or  in  war,  by  day  or  by  night,  think 
of  his  duty  to  his  fellows,  and  of  his  duty  to  the 
nation  through  which  their  and  his  loftiest  aspi- 
rations must  find  their  fitting  expression.  After 
the  Lusitania  was  sunk,  Mr.  Wilson  stated  in 
effect  that  such  a  time  was  not  the  right  time 



to  stir  up  patriotism.  This  statement  is  entirely 
incompatible  with  having  a  feeling  of  deep  pa- 
triotism at  any  time.  It  might  just  as  appropri- 
ately have  been  made  by  George  Washington  im- 
mediately after  his  defeat  at  the  Brandywine, 
or  by  Abraham  Lincoln  immediately  after  the 
surrender  of  Fort  Sumter;  and  if  in  either  of 
these  crises  our  leaders  had  acted  on  any  such 
principle  we  would  not  now  have  any  country  at 
all.  Patriotism  is  as  much  a  duty  in  time  of  war 
as  in  time  of  peace,  and  it  is  most  of  all  a  duty 
in  any  and  every  great  crisis.  To  commit  folly 
or  do  evil,  to  act  inconsiderately  and  hastily  or 
wantonly  and  viciously,  in  the  name  of  patriot- 
ism, represents  not  patriotism  at  all,  but  a  use  of 
the  name  to  cloak  an  attack  upon  the  thing.  Such 
baseness  or  folly  is  wrong,  at  every  time  and  on 
every  occasion.  But  patriotism  itself  is  not  only 
in  place  on  every  occasion  and  at  every  time,  but 
is  peculiarly  the  feeling  which  should  be  stirred 
to  its  deepest  depths  at  every  serious  crisis.  The 
duty  of  a  leader  is  to  lead;  and  it  is  a  dreadful 
thing  that  any  man  chosen  to  lead  his  fellow- 
countrymen  should  himself  show,  not  merely  so 
profound  a  lack  of  patriotism,  but  such  misun- 
derstanding of  patriotism,  as  to  be  willing  to  say 
in  a  great  crisis  what  President  Wilson  thus  said 
at  the  time  of  the  sinking  of  the  Lusitania.  This 
statement,  coupled  with  his  statement  made  about 



the  same  time  as  to  being  "too  proud  to  fight," 
furnishes  the  clue  to  the  Administration's  policy 
both  before  and  since.  This  policy  made  our 
great  democratic  commonwealth  false  to  its 
duties  and  its  ideals  in  a  tremendous  world  crisis, 
at  the  very  time  when,  if  properly  led,  it  could 
have  rendered  an  inestimable  service  to  all  man- 
kind, and  could  have  placed  itself  on  a  higher 
pinnacle  of  worthy  achievement  than  ever  before. 
Patriotism,  so  far  from  being  incompatible 
with  performance  of  duty  to  other  nations,  is  an 
indispensable  prerequisite  to  doing  one's  duty 
toward  other  nations.  Fear  God;  and  take  your 
own  part !  If  this  nation  had  feared  God  it  would 
have  stood  up  for  the  Belgians  and  Armenians ; 
if  it  had  been  able  and  willing  to  take  its  own 
part  there  would  have  been  no  murderous  assault 
on  the  Lusiiania,  no  outrages  on  our  men  and 
women  in  Mexico.  True  patriotism  carries  with 
it  not  hostility  to  other  nations  but  a  quickened 
sense  of  responsible  good-will  towards  other  na- 
tions, a  good-will  of  acts  and  not  merely  of 
words.  I  stand  for  a  nationalism  of  duty,  to 
oneself  and  to  others;  and,  therefore,  for  a  na- 
tionalism which  is  a  means  to  internationalism. 
World  peace  must  rest  on  the  willingness  of  na- 
tions with  courage,  cool  foresight,  and  readiness 
for  self-sacrifice  to  defend  the  fabric  of  interna- 
tional law.  No  nation  can  help  in  securing  an 



organized,  peaceful  and  justice-doing  world  com- 
munity until  it  is  willing  to  run  risks  and  make 
efforts  in  order  to  secure  and  maintain  such  a 

The  nation  that  in  actual  practice  fears  God 
is  the  nation  which  does  not  wrong  its  neigh- 
bors, which  does  so  far  as  possible  help  its 
neighbors,  and  which  never  promises  what  it 
cannot  or  will  not  or  ought  not  to  perform.  The 
professional  pacifists  in  and  out  of  office  who  at 
peace  congresses  pass  silly  resolutions  which  can- 
not be,  and  ought  not  to  be,  lived  up  to,  and  enter 
into  silly  treaties  which  ought  not  to  be,  and  can- 
not be,  kept,  are  not  serving  God,  but  Baal. 
They  are  not  doing  anything  for  anybody.1  If 
in  addition  these  people,  when  the  concrete  case 
arises,  as  in  Belgium  or  Armenia,  fear  concretely 

1See  the  excellent  little  book  called  "Is  War  Diminishing?" 
by  Woods  and  Baltzly.  The  authors  deal,  as  they  necessarily 
must  if  truthful  deal,  with  the  mischievous  activities  of  those 
professional  pacifists  among  whom  Mr.  Andrew  Carnegie  has 
attained  an  unhappy  prominence :  activities  which  in  this  country 
for  the  last  five  years  have  worked  nothing  but  evil,  and  very 
serious  evil,  to  our  nation  and  to  humanity  at  large,  and  to  all 
genuine  movements  for  the  promotion  of  the  peace  of  righteous- 
ness. The  writers  instance  Mr.  Nicholas  Murray  Butler  as 
presenting  in  typical  manner  the  shams  and  perversions  of  fact 
upon  which  the  professional  pacifists  rely  for  their  propaganda, 
and  remark  that  these  pacifists,  "who  pride  themselves  on  having 
the  superior  moral  point  of  view,  openly  disregard  the  truth," 
and  ask  "these  professors  of  ethics,  law  and  justice,  these  presi- 
dents of  colleges,  these  moral  educators,  if  morality  is  not  neces- 
sarily bound  up  with  truth."  The  pacifist  movement  in  this 
country  has  not  only  been  one  of  extreme  folly  and  immorality, 
but  has  been  bolstered  by  consistent  and  unwearied  falsification 
of  the  facts,  laudation  of  shallow  and  unprincipled  demagogues, 
and  condemnation  of  the  upright  public  servants  who  fearlessly 
tell  the  truth. 



to  denounce  and  antagonize  the  wrongdoer,  they 
become  not  merely  passive,  but  active  agents  of 
the  devil.  The  professional  pacifists  who  ap- 
plauded universal  arbitration  treaties  and  disar- 
mament proposals  prior  to  the  war,  since  the  war 
have  held  meetings  and  parades  in  this  country 
on  behalf  of  peace,  and  have  gone  on  silly  mis- 
sions to  Europe  on  behalf  of  peace — and  the 
peace  they  sought  to  impose  on  heroes  who  were 
battling  against  infamy  was  a  peace  conceived  in 
the  interest  of  the  authors  of  the  infamy.  They 
did  not  dare  to  say  that  they  stood  only  for  a 
peace  that  should  right  the  wrongs  of  Belgium. 
They  did  not  dare  to  denounce  the  war  of  aggres- 
sion by  Germany  against  Belgium.  Their  souls 
were  too  small,  their  timidity  too  great.  They 
were  even  afraid  to  applaud  the  war  waged  by 
Belgium  in  its  own  defence.  These  pacifists  have 
served  morality,  have  shown  that  they  feared 
God,  exactly  as  the  Pharisees  did,  when  they 
made  broad  their  philacteries  and  uttered  long 
prayers  in  public,  but  did  not  lift  a  finger  to 
lighten  the  load  of  the  oppressed.  When  Mr. 
Wilson  and  Mr.  Bryan  made  this  nation  shirk 
its  duty  towards  Belgium,  they  made  us  false  to 
all  our  high  ideals;  for  they  acted  and  caused 
this  government  to  act  in  that  spirit  of  commer- 
cial opportunism  which  refuses  to  do  duty  to  oth- 
ers unless  there  is  in  it  pecuniary  profit  for  one- 



self.  This  combination  of  mean  timidity  and 
mean  commercial  opportunism  is  peculiarly  odi- 
ous because  those  practising  it  have  sought  to 
hide  it  by  profuse  outbursts  of  wordy  sentimen- 
tality and  loud  professions  of  attachment  to  im- 
possible and  undesirable  ideals.  One  of  the  be- 
setting sins  of  many  of  our  public  servants  (and 
of  not  a  few  of  our  professional  moralists,  lay 
and  clerical)  is  to  cloak  weakness  or  baseness  of 
action  behind  insincere  oratory  on  behalf  of  im- 
practical ideals.  The  true  servant  of  the  people 
is  the  man  who  preaches  realizable  ideals;  and 
who  then  practises  what  he  has  preached. 

Moreover,  even  as  regards  the  pacifists  who 
genuinely  desire  that  this  nation  should  fear  God, 
it  is  to  be  remembered  that  if  the  nation  cannot 
take  its  own  part,  the  fact  that  it  fears  God  will 
be  of  no  practical  consequence  to  any  one.  No- 
body cares  whether  or  not  the  feeling  of  the  Chi- 
nese people  is  against  international  wrongdoing; 
for,  as  China  is  helplessly  unable  to  take  her  own 
part,  she  is  in  practise  even  more  helpless  to  take 
the  part  of  any  one  else  and  to  secure  justice 
and  mercy  for  any  one  else.  The  pacifists  who 
are  seeking  to  China fy  the  United  States  are 
not  only  seeking  to  bring  the  United  States  to 
ruin,  but  are  also  seeking  to  render  it  abso- 
lutely impotent  to  help  upright  and  well-behaved 
nations  which  are  oppressed  by  the  military 



power   of   unscrupulous    neighbors   of   greater 

The  professional  pacifists,  the  leaders  in  the 
pacifist  movement  in  the  United  States,  do  par- 
ticular harm  by  giving  well-meaning  but  unin- 
formed people  who  do  not  think  deeply  what 
seems  to  them  a  convincing  excuse  for  failure 
to  show  courage  and  resolution.  Those  who 
preach  sloth  and  cowardice  under  the  high- 
sounding  name  of  "peace"  give  people  a  word 
with  which  to  cloak,  even  to  themselves,  their 
failure  to  perform  unpleasant  duty.  For  a  man 
to  stand  up  for  his  own  rights,  or  especially  for 
the  rights  of  somebody  else,  means  that  he  must 
have  virile  qualities :  courage,  foresight,  willing- 
ness to  face  risk  and  undergo  effort.  It  is  much 
easier  to  be  timid  and  lazy.  The  average  man 
does  not  like  to  face  death  and  endure  hard- 
ship and  labor.  He  can  be  roused  to  do  so  if 
a  leader  of  the  right  type,  a  Washington  or 
Lincoln,  appeals  to  the  higher  qualities,  includ- 
ing the  stern  qualities,  of  his  soul.  But  a  leader, 
or  at  least  a  man  who  holds  a  leader's  place, 
earns  praise  and  profit  unworthily  if  he  uses  his 
gift  of  words  to  lull  well-meaning  men  to  sleep, 
if  he  assures  them  that  it  is  their  duty  to  do  the 
easy  and  selfish  thing,  and  furnishes  them  high- 
sounding  phrases  with  which  to  cover  ignoble 
failure  to  perform  hard  and  disagreeable  duties. 



Peace  is  not  the  end.  Righteousness  is  the 
end.  When  the  Saviour  saw  the  money-changers 
in  the  Temple  he  broke  the  peace  by  driving 
them  out.  At  that  moment  peace  could  have 
been  obtained  readily  enough  by  the  simple  proc- 
ess of  keeping  quiet  in  the  presence  of  wrong. 
But  instead  of  preserving  peace  at  the  expense 
of  righteousness,  the  Saviour  armed  himself 
with  a  scourge  of  cords  and  drove  the  money- 
changers from  the  Temple.  Righteousness  is 
the  end,  and  peace  a  means  to  the  end,  and  some- 
times it  is  not  peace,  but  war  which  is  the  proper 
means  to  achieve  the  end.  Righteousness  should 
breed  valor  and  strength.  When  it  does  breed 
them,  it  is  triumphant;  and  when  triumphant,  it 
necessarily  brings  peace.  But  peace  does  not  nec- 
essarily bring  righteousness. 

As  for  neutrality,  it  is  well  to  remember  that 
it  is  never  moral,  and  may  be  a  particularly  mean 
and  hideous  form  of  immorality.  It  is  in  itself 
merely  unmoral;  that  is,  neither  moral  nor  im- 
moral; and  at  times  it  may  be  wise  and  expedi- 
ent. But  it  is  never  anything  of  which  to  be 
proud;  and  it  may  be  something  of  which  to  be 
heartily  ashamed.  It  is  a  wicked  thing  to  be 
neutral  between  right  and  wrong.  Impartiality 
does  not  mean  neutrality.  Impartial  justice  con- 
sists not  in  being  neutral  between  right  and 
wrong,  but  in  finding  out  the  right  and  uphold- 



ing  it,  wherever  found,  against  the  wrong. 
Moreover,  submission  to  an  initial  wrong  means 
that  all  protests  against  subsequent  and  lesser 
wrongs  are  hypocritical  and  ineffective.  Had 
we  protested,  in  such  fashion  that  our  protest  was 
effective,  against  what  was  done  in  Belgium  by 
Germany,  and  against  the  sinking  of  the  Lusi- 
tania  by  Germany,  we  could  have  (and  in  such 
case  we  ought  to  have)  protested  against  all  sub- 
sequent and  minor  infractions  of  international 
law  and  morals,  including  those  which  interfered 
with  our  commerce  or  with  any  other  neutral 
rights.  But  failure  to  protest  against  the  first 
and  worst  offences  of  the  strongest  wrongdoer 
made  it  contemptible,  and  an  act  of  bad  faith, 
to  protest  against  subsequent  and  smaller  mis- 
deeds; and  failure  to  act  (not  merely  speak  or 
write  notes)  when  our  women  and  children  were 
murdered  made  protests  against  interference 
with  American  business  profits  both  offensive 
and  ludicrous. 

The  pacifists  have  used  all  kinds  of  argu- 
ments in  favor  of  peaceful  submission  to,  or 
refusal  to  prepare  against,  international  violence 
and  wrongdoing,  and  among  others  the  very  an- 
cient arguments  based  upon  the  supposed  teach- 
ing of  the  New  Testament  against  war.  In  the 
first  place,  as  I  have  already  pointed  out,  this 
argument  is  quite  incompatible  with  accepting 


the  lesson  taught  by  the  action  of  the  Saviour 
in  driving  the  money-changers  from  the  Temple ; 
not  to  mention,  incidentally,  that  the  duty  of  pre- 
paredness has  rarely  been  put  in  stronger  form 
than  by  St.  Luke  in  the  direction  that  "He  that 
hath  no  sword,  let  him  sell  his  garment  and  buy 

In  the  next  place,  the  plea  is  merely  an  in- 
stance of  the  adroit  casuistry  that  can  twist  iso- 
lated teachings  of  the  Gospels  in  any  required 
direction.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Gospels  do 
not  deal  with  war  at  all.  During  the  period 
they  covered  there  was  no  war  in  Judea,  and  no 
question  arising  from  the  need  of  going  to  war. 
The  precepts  and  teachings  upon  which  the  pa- 
cifists rely  apply  not  to  war,  but  to  questions 
arising  from  or  concerning  individual  and  mob 
violence  and  the  exercise  of  the  internal  police 
power.  In  so  far  as  sincere  and  logical  paci- 
fists are  concerned,  they  recognize  this  fact. 
There  are  schools  of  pacifists  who  decline  to 
profit  by  the  exercise  of  the  police  power,  who 
decline  to  protect  not  merely  themselves,  but 
those  dearest  to  them,  from  any  form  of  out- 
rage and  violence.  The  individuals  of  this  type 
are  at  least  logical  in  their  horror  even  of  just 
war.  If  a  man  deliberately  takes  the  view  that 
he  will  not  resent  having  his  wife's  face  slapped, 
that  he  will  not  by  force  endeavor  to  save  his 



daughter  from  outrage,  and  that  he  disapproves 
of  the  policeman  who  interferes  by  force  to  save 
a  child  kidnapped  by  a  black-hander,  or  a  girl 
run  off  by  a  white-slaver,  then  he  is  logical  in 
objecting  to  war.  Of  course,  to  my  mind,  he 
occupies  an  unspeakably  base  and  loathsome  po- 
sition, and  is  not  fit  to  cumber  the  world — in 
which,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  he  exists  at  all  only 
because  he  is  protected  by  the  maintenance  by 
others  of  the  very  principle  which  he  himself  re- 
pudiates and  declines  to  share. 

Such  a  position  I  hold  to  be  as  profoundly  im- 
moral as  it  is  profoundly  unpatriotic.  But,  at 
least,  the  men  holding  it  are  trying  logically  to 
apply  the  principles  which  they  profess  to  fol- 
low. Messrs.  Bryan,  Jordan,  Ford,  and  the  other 
professional  pacifists,  however,  are  either  in- 
sincere in  their  denunciation  of  war,  or  else  must 
announce  that  the  same  principle  which  makes 
them  denounce  a  just  war  entered  into  for  the 
sake  of  the  welfare  of  the  nation  as  a  whole, 
also  makes  them  denounce  the  man  who,  by  force, 
endeavors  to  protect  his  daughter  against  in- 
famy, or  the  woman  who  opposes  her  feeble 
strength  to  the  brutality  of  the  kidnapper  of  her 
child.  Either  these  gentlemen,  as  regards  their 
own  families,  approve  of  tame  submission  to 
kidnapping  and  white  slavery,  and  disapprove  of 
suppression  of  kidnapping  and  white  slavery  by 



the  police,  or  else  they  are  either  thoroughly 
unintelligent  or  else  thoroughly  dishonest  in  their 
denunciation  of  national  preparedness  and  of 
readiness  to  enter  into  just  war  on  behalf  either 
of  ourselves  or  of  others. 

Let  us  beware  of  confusing  names  with  things. 
The  fuglemen  of  President  Wilson  have  kept 
praising  him  because,  forsooth,  he  has  "kept  us 
out  of  war."  Every  now  and  then  one  of  them 
reverses  his  praise,  and  says  that  in  any  event 
President  Wilson  could  not  have  gone  to  war, 
because  war  can  only  be  declared  by  Congress. 
But  as  a  matter  of  fact,  President  Wilson  has 
gone  to  war,  both  with  Hayti  and  with  Mexico. 

This  is  a  matter  of  deeds,  not  of  words.  When 
our  armed  forces  attack  the  chief  seaport  city 
of  a  foreign  country,  as  we  did  in  the  case  both 
of  Mexico  and  of  Hayti,  and  take  it  by  violence, 
after  conflicts  in  which  scores  of  our  own  men 
and  either  scores  or  hundreds  of  our  opponents 
are  killed  and  wounded,  the  act  is  one  of  war. 
It  may  be  successful  war  like  that  which  Mr.  Wil- 
son nerved  himself  to  wage  with  tiny  Hayti — 
for  Mr.  Wilson  was  not  afraid  of  Hayti.  It  may 
be  utterly  ineffective  war,  as  in  the  case  of  Mr. 
Wilson's  little  war  with  Mexico.  But  both  were 
wars;  and  each  was  waged  without  any  Con- 
gressional action  whatever.  Mr.  Wilson  sent  the 
fleet  down  to  Vera  Cruz,  and  took  it  in  order  to 



get  a  salute  for  the  flag.  The  men  wearing  the 
United  States  uniform,  who  carried  out  his  com- 
mand, suffered  a  considerable  loss  of  life  and 
inflicted  a  greater  loss  of  life.  He  then  brought 
our  forces  away  without  achieving  the  object 
he  had  in  view.  His  little  war  was  an  ignoble 
war,  and  he  was  beaten  in  it.  But  it  was  a  war. 

Some  of  his  defenders  now  say  that,  although 
defeated  in  the  avowed  purpose  of  the  war,  he 
succeeded  as  regards  the  unavowed  purpose, 
which  was  to  drive  out  Huerta  in  the  interests 
of  Villa.  This  is,  of  course,  a  confession  that 
their  statements  on  behalf  of  Mr.  Wilson  are 
untrue,  that  he  has  not  kept  the  country  at  peace, 
but  has  put  it  into  a  war,  not  to  serve  any  public 
purpose,  but  to  gratify  his  personal  feelings.  It 
is,  of  course,  a  statement  absolutely  incompati- 
ble with  Mr.  Wilson's  own  claim  that  he  did  not 
intervene  in  Mexico.  Therefore,  these  admirers 
of  Mr.  Wilson  come  to  his  defence  by  vociferat- 
ing what  he  asserts  to  be  contrary  to  the  truth. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  in  this  case  they  are  cor- 
rect. Mr.  Wilson  has  more  than  once  interfered 
— to  use  his  own  scholarly  and  elegant  phrase- 
ology, "butted  in" — by  making  war  in  Mexico. 
He  never  did  it,  however,  to  secure  justice  for 
Americans  or  other  foreigners.  He  never  did 
it  to  secure  the  triumph  of  justice  and  peace 
among  the  Mexicans  themselves.  He  merely  did 


it  in  the  interest  of  some  bandit  chief,  whom  at 
the  moment  he  liked,  in  order  to  harm  some  other 
bandit  chief  whom  at  the  moment  he  disliked. 
Under  such  circumstances  his  methods  of  action, 
and  his  defence  of  his  action,  are  worthy  of  a 
Byzantine  logothete — but  not  of  an  American 
statesman  who  is  true  to  the  traditions  of  Wash- 
ington and  Lincoln,  and  an  heir  to  the  valor 
shown  by  the  soldiers  of  Grant  and  of  Lee. 

Mr.  Wilson  has  been  President  when  the 
urgent  need  of  the  nation  was  for  action.  He 
has  met  the  need  purely  by  elocution.  A  friend, 
writing  to  me  last  Christmas  Eve,  remarked  that 
he  had  just  found  in  Cymbeline  "in  anticipation 
of  the  gentleman  in  the  White  House": 

"Prithee  have  done, 

And  do  not  play  in  wench-like  words  with  that 
Which  is  so  serious." 

Peace  is  not  a  question  of  names.  It  is  a  ques- 
tion of  facts.  If  murders  occur  in  a  city,  and 
if  the  police  force  is  so  incompetent  that  no 
record  is  made  of  them  officially,  that  does  not 
interfere  with  the  fact  that  murders  have  been 
committed  and  that  life  is  unsafe.  In  just  the 
same  way,  if  lives  are  taken  by  violence  between 
nations,  it  is  not  of  the  slightest  consequence 
whether  those  responsible  for  the  government 
of  the  nation  whose  citizens  have  lost  their  lives 



do  or  do  not  assert  that  the  nation  is  at  peace. 
During  the  last  three  years  we  have  been  techni- 
cally at  peace.  But  during  those  three  years 
more  of  our  citizens  have  been  killed  by  Mexi- 
cans, Germans,  Austrians  and  Haytians  than 
were  killed  during  the  entire  Spanish  War.  It 
is  true  that  the  American  citizens  killed  during 
the  past  three  years  have  been  mostly  non-com- 
batants, including  women  and  children,  although 
many  men  wearing  the  national  uniform  have 
also  been  killed,  some  of  them  on  American  soil. 
But  the  fact  that  women  and  children  are  killed 
instead  of  full-grown  men  in  uniform  surely  in- 
creases rather  than  diminishes  the  horror.  We 
have  had  a  great  many  more  citizens  killed  dur- 
ing this  time  of  alleged  peace,  and  thanks  to  the 
activities  of  the  emissaries  of  foreign  govern- 
ments with  the  torch  and  the  bomb  on  our  own 
soil,  we  have  had  much  more  American  property 
destroyed,  than  was  the  case  during  the  open 
war  with  Spain ;  and  whereas,  thanks  to  the  ab- 
ject quality  of  Mr.  Wilson's  tameness,  no  benefit 
whatever,  to  us  or  to  mankind  at  larg*e,  has 
come  from  this  loss  of  life  and  destruction  of 
property  during  the  last  three  years,  the  short 
war  with  Spain  brought  incalculable  benefits  to 
Cuba,  Porto  Rico,  the  Philippines,  not  to  speak 
of  ourselves. 

On  February  I2th  it  will  be  a  year  since  the 


bined  unworthy  submission  to  wrongs  against 
ourselves,  with  selfish  refusal  to  keep  our  word 
and  do  right  by  others.  Under  the  sixth  article 
of  the  Constitution  treaties  are  "the  Supreme  law 
of  the  land."  The  Hague  Conventions  were 
treaties  of  this  kind.  They  included  a  guaranty 
from  Germany  that  she  would  not  violate  the 
territory  of  neutral  nations  (including  the 
territory  of  Belgium)  and  a  guaranty  by  Bel- 
gium that  if  an  attempt  was  made  to  violate 
her  territory  she  would  fight  to  prevent  the  vio- 
lation. Germany  broke  her  solemn  promise  to 
us,  and  offended  against  the  Supreme  law  of 
our  land.  Belgium  kept  her  solemn  promise  made 
by  her  to  us,  to  Germany,  to  France,  Russia  and 
England.  We  shirked  our  duty  by  failing  to  take 
any  action,  even  by  protest,  against  the  wrong- 
doer and  on  behalf  of  the  wronged,  by  permitting 
this  violation  of  our  law,  of  the  law  which  we 
guaranteed,  of  the  "supreme  law  of  the  land," 
and  by  announcing  through  our  President  that 
we  would  be  "neutral  in  thought  as  well  as  in 
deed"  between  the  oppressor  and  the  oppressed. 
We  have  been  equally  signal  in  our  remiss- 
ness  to  prepare  for  our  own  defence.  It  is  our 
highest  duty  thus  to  prepare,  and  in  manful  fash- 
ion to  pay  the  cost  of  preparation.  Seven  years 
ago  we  were  relatively  to  the  rest  of  the  world 
far  better  prepared  than  ever  before  in  our  his- 



tory.  Our  navy  was  in  combined  size  and  ef- 
ficiency the  second  in  the  world.  The  Philip- 
pines had  been  pacified,  Mexico  was  orderly  and 
peaceful,  and  the  Hague  Conventions,  if  actively 
enforced  and  treated  as  binding  by  peaceful  and 
law-abiding  nations,  would  have  regulated  the 
conduct  of  war,  circumscribed  its  limits,  and 
minimized  the  chance  of  its  occurrence.  Under 
such  conditions  our  regular  army  was  of  suf- 
ficient size  (provided  the  work  of  improving  its 
efficiency  was  steadily  continued,  as  had  been  the 
case  during  the  preceding  seven  years) — for  the 
navy  was  our  first  and  principal  line  of  defence. 
Although  as  President  I  had  called  the  attention 
of  Congress  and  of  the  people  to  the  Swiss  sys- 
tem of  universal  service  as  a  model  for  us  as  well 
as  other  democracies,  there  did  not  at  that  time 
seem  any  sufficient  justification  for  military 
alarm.  But  what  has  happened  during  the  last 
year  and  a  half  has  forced  all  reasonably  far- 
sighted  men  to  understand  that  we  are  living  in 
a  new  world.  We  have  let  our  navy  deteriorate 
to  a  degree  both  shameful  and  alarming.  We 
have  shown  by  our  own  conduct  when  the  Hague 
Conventions  were  violated  that  all  such  treaties 
are  utterly  worthless,  as  offering  even  the  small- 
est safeguard  against  aggression.  Above  all,  the 
immense  efficiency,  the  utter  ruthlessness,  and 
the  gigantic  scale  of  the  present  military  opera- 



bined  unworthy  submission  to  wrongs  against 
ourselves,  with  selfish  refusal  to  keep  our  word 
and  do  right  by  others.  Under  the  sixth  article 
of  the  Constitution  treaties  are  "the  Supreme  law 
of  the  land."  The  Hague  Conventions  were 
treaties  of  this  kind.  They  included  a  guaranty 
from  Germany  that  she  would  not  violate  the 
territory  of  neutral  nations  (including  the 
territory  of  Belgium)  and  a  guaranty  by  Bel- 
gium that  if  an  attempt  was  made  to  violate 
her  territory  she  would  fight  to  prevent  the  vio- 
lation. Germany  broke  her  solemn  promise  to 
us,  and  offended  against  the  Supreme  law  of 
our  land.  Belgium  kept  her  solemn  promise  made 
by  her  to  us,  to  Germany,  to  France,  Russia  and 
England.  We  shirked  our  duty  by  failing  to  take 
any  action,  even  by  protest,  against  the  wrong- 
doer and  on  behalf  of  the  wronged,  by  permitting 
this  violation  of  our  law,  of  the  law  which  we 
guaranteed,  of  the  "supreme  law  of  the  land/' 
and  by  announcing  through  our  President  that 
we  would  be  "neutral  in  thought  as  well  as  in 
deed"  between  the  oppressor  and  the  oppressed. 
We  have  been  equally  signal  in  our  remiss- 
ness  to  prepare  for  our  own  defence.  It  is  our 
highest  duty  thus  to  prepare,  and  in  manful  fash- 
ion to  pay  the  cost  of  preparation.  Seven  years 
ago  we  were  relatively  to  the  rest  of  the  world 
far  better  prepared  than  ever  before  in  our  his- 



tory.  Our  navy  was  in  combined  size  and  ef- 
ficiency the  second  in  the  world.  The  Philip- 
pines had  been  pacified,  Mexico  was  orderly  and 
peaceful,  and  the  Hague  Conventions,  if  actively 
enforced  and  treated  as  binding  by  peaceful  and 
law-abiding  nations,  would  have  regulated  the 
conduct  of  war,  circumscribed  its  limits,  and 
minimized  the  chance  of  its  occurrence.  Under 
such  conditions  our  regular  army  was  of  suf- 
ficient size  (provided  the  work  of  improving  its 
efficiency  was  steadily  continued,  as  had  been  the 
case  during  the  preceding  seven  years) — for  the 
navy  was  our  first  and  principal  line  of  defence. 
Although  as  President  I  had  called  the  attention 
of  Congress  and  of  the  people  to  the  Swiss  sys- 
tem of  universal  service  as  a  model  for  us  as  well 
as  other  democracies,  there  did  not  at  that  time 
seem  any  sufficient  justification  for  military 
alarm.  But  what  has  happened  during  the  last 
year  and  a  half  has  forced  all  reasonably  far- 
sighted  men  to  understand  that  we  are  living  in 
a  new  world.  We  have  let  our  navy  deteriorate 
to  a  degree  both  shameful  and  alarming.  We 
have  shown  by  our  own  conduct  when  the  Hague 
Conventions  were  violated  that  all  such  treaties 
are  utterly  worthless,  as  offering  even  the  small- 
est safeguard  against  aggression.  Above  all,  the 
immense  efficiency,  the  utter  ruthlessness,  and 
the  gigantic  scale  of  the  present  military  opera- 


tions  show  that  we  need  military  preparedness 
on  a  scale  never  hitherto  even  dreamed  of  by 
any  American  statesman. 

Eighteen  months  have  gone  by  since  the  great 
war  broke  out.  It  needed  no  prescience,  no  re- 
markable statesmanship  or  gift  of  forecasting 
the  future,  to  see  that,  when  such  mighty  forces 
were  unloosed  and  when  it  had  been  shown  that 
all  treaties  and  other  methods  hitherto  relied 
upon  for  national  protection  and  for  mitigating 
the  horrors  and  circumscribing  the  area  of  war 
were  literally  "scraps  of  paper,"  it  had  become 
a  vital  necessity  that  we  should  instantly  and 
on  a  great  and  adequate  scale  prepare  for  our 
own  defence.  Our  men,  women  and  children — 
not  in  isolated  cases,  but  in  scores  and  hundreds 
of  cases — have  been  murdered  by  Germany  and 
Mexico;  and  we  have  tamely  submitted  to 
wrongs  from  Germany  and  Mexico  of  a  kind  to 
which  no  nation  can  submit  without  impairing 
its  own  self-respect  and  incurring  the  contempt 
of  the  rest  of  mankind.  Yet  during  these  eigh- 
teen months  not  one  thing  has  been  done.  The 
President  in  his  Message  to  Congress  four 
months  after  the  beginning  of  the  war  actually 
took  ground  against  such  preparedness.  At  this 
moment  we  are  no  stronger  by  one  soldier  or 
one  sailor,  by  one  cannon  or  by  one  ship,  because 
of  anything  that  has  been  done  during  these 



eighteen  months  in  view  of  the  frightful  world 
calamity  that  has  befallen.  At  last  the  popular 
feeling  has  grown  to  be  such  that  the  President 
has  paid  to  it  the  tribute  of  advocating  an  inef- 
ficient and  belated  half -measure  of  preparedness. 
But  even  so,  not  one  thing  has  yet  been  done. 
Everything  is  still  in  the  future,  and  there  is 
not  the  slightest  sign  that  the  urgency  of  the  case 
has  been  recognized.  Nine-tenths  of  wisdom  is 
being  wise  in  time.  Never  in  the  country's  his- 
tory has  there  been  a  more  stupendous  instance 
of  folly  than  this  crowning  folly  of  waiting  eigh- 
teen months  after  the  elemental  crash  of  nations 
took  place  before  even  making  a  start  in  an  ef- 
fort— and  an  utterly  inefficient  and  insufficient 
effort — for  some  kind  of  preparation  to  ward  off 
disaster  in  the  future. 

If  President  Wilson  had  shown  the  disinter- 
ested patriotism,  courage  and  foresight  de- 
manded by  this  stupendous  crisis  I  would  have 
supported  him  with  hearty  enthusiasm.  But  his 
action,  or  rather  inaction,  has  been  such  that  it 
has  become  a  matter  of  high  patriotic  duty  to 
oppose  him.  No  man  can  support  Mr.  Wilson 
without  being  false  to  the  ideals  of  national  duty 
and  international  humanity.  No  one  can  support 
Mr.  Wilson  without  opposing  the  larger  Ameri- 
canism, the  true  Americanism.  No  man  can 
support  Mr.  Wilson  and  at  the  same  time  be 



really  in  favor  of  thoroughgoing  preparedness 
against  war.  No  man  can  support  Mr.  Wilson 
without  at  the  same  time  supporting  a  policy  of 
criminal  inefficiency  as  regards  the  United  States 
navy,  of  shortsighted  inadequacy  as  regards  the 
army,  of  abandonment  of  the  duty  owed  by  the 
United  States  to  weak  and  well-behaved  nations, 
and  of  failure  to  insist  on  our  just  rights  when 
we  are  ourselves  maltreated  by  powerful  and  un- 
scrupulous nations. 

It  has  been  a  matter  of  sincere  regret  to  me 
to  part  company  with  so  many  German  friends 
who  believe  that  I  have  been  unkind  to  Germany. 
It  has  also  been  a  matter  of  sincere  grief  to  me 
to  find  that  my  position  has  been  misunderstood 
and  misrepresented  and  resented  by  many  up- 
right fellow-citizens  to  whom  in  the  past  I  have 
been  devoted,  but  who  have  let  their  loyalty  to 
Germany,  the  land  from  which  they  themselves 
or  their  forefathers  came,  blind  them  to  their 
loyalty  to  the  United  States  and  their  duty  to  hu- 
manity at  large.  I  wish  explicitly  and  emphati- 
cally to  state  that  I  do  not  believe  that  this  is 
the  attitude  of  any  but  a  minority  of  American 
citizens  of  German  birth  or  descent.  Among  my 
stanchest  friends  are  many  men  of  German 
blood,  who  are  American  citizens  and  nothing 
else.  As  I  have  elsewhere  said,  I  could  name 
an  entire  administration  from  the  President 



down  through  every  member  of  the  Cabinet, 
every  man  of  whom  would  be  of  German  blood, 
but  an  American  and  nothing  else;  an  adminis- 
tration which  I  and  all  those  like  me  could  follow 
with  absolute  confidence  in  dealing  with  this  or 
any  similar  crisis. 

The  German  element  has  contributed  much 
to  our  national  life,  and  can  yet  do  much  more 
in  music,  in  literature,  in  art,  in  sound  construc- 
tive citizenship.  In  the  greatest  of  our  national 
crises,  the  Civil  War,  a  larger  percentage  of  our 
citizens  of  recent  German  origin,  than  of  our 
citizens  of  old  revolutionary  stock,  proved  loyal 
to  the  great  ideals  of  union  and  of  liberty.  I  am 
myself  partly  of  German  blood.  I  believe  that 
this  country  has  more  to  learn  from  Ger- 
many than  from  any  other  nation — and  this  as 
regards  fealty  to  non-utilitarian  ideals,  no  less 
than  as  regards  the  essentials  of  social  and  in- 
dustrial efficiency,  of  that  species  of  socialized 
governmental  action  which  is  absolutely  neces- 
sary for  individual  protection  and  general  well- 
being  under  the  conditions  of  modern  industrial- 
ism. But  in  this  country  we  must  all  stand  to- 
gether absolutely  without  regard  to  our  several 
lines  of  descent,  as  Americans  and  nothing  else; 
and,  above  all,  we  must  do  this  as  regards  moral 
issues.  The  great  issues  with  which  we  must 
now  deal  are  moral  even  more  than  material; 


and  on  these  issues  every  good  American  should 
be  with  us,  without  the  slightest  regard  to  the 
land  from  which  his  forefathers  came. 

As  regards  the  German- Americans  who  assail 
me  in  this  contest  because  they  are  really  mere 
transported  Germans,  hostile  to  this  country  and 
to  human  rights,  I  feel  not  sorrow,  but  stern 
disapproval.  I  am  not  interested  in  their  attitude 
toward  me;  but  I  am  greatly  interested  in  their 
attitude  toward  this  nation.  I  am  standing  for 
the  larger  Americanism,  for  true  Americanism; 
and  as  regards  my  attitude  in  this  matter,  I  do 
not  ask  as  a  favor,  but  challenge  as  a  right, 
the  support  of  all  good  American  citizens,  no 
matter  where  born,  and  no  matter  of  what  creed 
or  national  origin.  I  do  not  in  the  least  desire 
any  support  for  or  approval  of  me  personally; 
but  I  do  most  emphatically  demand  such  support 
and  approval  for  the  doctrines  of  the  larger 
Americanism  which  I  advocate. 

When  some  fourteen  months  ago  I  published 
under  the  title  of  "America  and  the  World  War," 
a  little  volume  containing  what  I  had  publicly 
said  and  urged  during  the  first  months  of  the 
war,  I  took  substantially  the  ground  that  I  now 
take.  But  there  is  infinitely  more  reason  for 
taking  such  ground  now. 

At  that  time  Germany  had  sinned  against  civi- 
lization by  her  conduct  toward  Belgium  and  her 


method  of  carrying  on  the  war,  and  I  held  it  to 
be  our  duty  in  accordance  with  our  solemn  cove- 
nant to  take  whatever  action  was  necessary  in 
order  to  show  that  our  nation  stood  for  the  right 
and  against  the  wrong,  even  when  the  wrong  was 
triumphant.  But  our  duty  is  far  stronger  now. 
For  many  months  Germany  has  waged  war 
against  us,  the  war  being  conducted  by  openly 
authorized  agents  of  Germany  on  the  high  seas 
and  within  our  land  against  our  munition  plants 
by  men  who  have  been  shown  to  be  the  direct 
or  indirect  agents  of  Germany — and  whom 
as  matter  of  fact  no  human  being  in  his  senses 
denies  to  be  such.  What  I  say  of  Germany  ap- 
plies in  less  degree  to  Austria,  which  has  be- 
come the  instrument  of  Germany's  ambition  and 
her  agent  in  wrongdoing.1 

1  In  a  recent  excellent  pamphlet  Mr.  Gustav  Bissing,  who,  like 
myself,  is  an  American  of  non- English  blood  (I  believe  mainly 
German  blood),  speaks  of  the  activities  of  the  hyphenated  pro- 
fessional German-Americans  and  Austrian-Americans  in  part 
as  follows :  "Are  we  really  a  nation,  a  people,  a  fused  product 
of  the  melting-pot,  or  are  we,  after  all,  a  polyglot  conglomerate 
of  unfused  nationalities?  .  .  .  What  we  need  is  a  leader,  one 
who  walks  ahead,  some  one  with  prescience,  imagination  and 
courage.  The  chord  which  is  to  reverberate  in  American  ears 
throughout  the  land  must  be  struck  by  a  master-musician  not 
afraid  of  the  foreign  vote.  'Gott  erhalte  Franz  der  Kaiser'  and 
'Die  Wacht  am  Rhein'  are  both  inspirating  national  anthems. 
But  just  now  I  am  longing  for  the  simple  strains  of  simon-pure 
'Yankee  Doodle.' "  One  of  the  best  Americans  I  know — a  man 
both  of  whose  parents  were  born  in  Germany — writes  me  from 
South  America  as  follows:  "We  of  the  U.  S.  are  considered 
here  a  more  or  less  spiritless,  invertebrate  sort  of  humanity, 
because  of  the  insults  we  have  accepted  from  Germany,  and 
our  inaction  in  Mexico.  At  the  present  time  it  is  far  safer  and 
more  pleasant  for  an  American  to  remain  home.  No  man's  life 


I  preach  antipathy  to  no  nation.  I  feel  not 
merely  respect  but  admiration  for  the  German 
people.  I  regard  their  efficiency  and  their  de- 
voted patriotism  and  steady  endurance  as 
fraught  with  significant  lessons  to  us.  I  believe 
that  they  have  permitted  themselves  to  be  utterly 
misled,  and  have  permitted  their  government  to 
lead  them  in  the  present  war  into  a  course  of 
conduct  which,  if  persevered  in,  would  make 
them  the  permanent  enemy  of  all  the  free  and 
liberty-loving  nations  of  mankind  and  of  civili- 
zation itself.  But  I  believe  that  sooner  or  later 
they  will  recover  their  senses  and  make  their 
government  go  right.  I  shall  continue  to  cherish 
the  friendliest  feelings  toward  the  Germans  in- 
dividually, and  for  Germany  collectively  as  soon 
as  Germany  collectively  comes  to  her  senses.  No 
nation  is  always  right,  and  very  few  nations  are 
always  wrong.  It  is  our  duty  to  judge  each 
nation  by  its  conduct  in  the  given  crisis  which 
must  at  the  moment  be  faced.  Since  this  country 
became  a  nation,  there  have  been  occasions  when 
it  has  so  acted  as  to  deserve  the  condemnation  of 

is  safe  in  the  hands  of  a  man  like  Wilson !  If  the  people  of  the 
U.  S.  A.  don't  overwhelmingly  drive  the  peace-at-any-price  party 
out  of  office  at  the  next  election,  they  will  lose  practically  all 
standing  in  foreign  countries,  and  will  have  to  face  the  discon- 
tent and  humiliation  of  their  own  most  high-minded  citizens. 
We  do  not  need  more  wealth  in  the  U.  S.  A.  to-day;  our  crying 
need  is  manhood !  The  American  people  must  awake  to  a 
realization  of  duty  and  put  a  stop  to  the  abuses  which  now 
threaten  our  honor  and  our  national  integrity." 



mankind — and  as  regards  slavery  its  action  was 
persevered  in  for  many  years.  During  the  same 
period  England,  France,  and  Russia  have  each 
of  them  and  all  of  them  at  one  time  or  another 
so  behaved  as  to  merit  from  us  condemnation 
and  antagonism;  and,  at  certain  periods  in  our 
history,  during  the  Napoleonic  wars,  for  instance, 
and  during  our  own  Civil  War,  the  attitude  of 
the  ruling  classes  in  both  France  and  England 
was  unfriendly  to  our  country.  In  1898  Ger- 
many was  hostile  to  us,  and  all  the  nations  of 
Continental  Europe  followed  suit,  whereas  Eng- 
land, and  England  alone,  stood  by  us.  In  the 
Revolution  France  was  our  only  real  friend. 
During  the  time  of  the  Civil  War  Russia  was  the 
only  European  nation  which  showed  us  any  sym- 
pathy whatever. 

When  as  a  nation  we  displayed  a  purpose  to 
champion  international  piracy  in  the  interest  of 
slavery  we  deserved  to  be  condemned.  But  in  the 
end  we  did  well,  and  proved  our  worth  by  our  en- 
deavor, and  when  we  championed  orderly  free- 
dom in  Cuba,  the  Philippines,  and  Panama,  we 
deserved  to  be  praised.  In  1878  it  was  right  to 
champion  Russia  and  Bulgaria  against  Turkey 
and  England.  For  exactly  the  same  reasons  we 
ought  now  to  champion  Russia  and  England  and 
Servia  against  Turkey  and  Bulgaria.  A  century 
ago  the  sympathies  of  humanity  ought  to  have 



been  with  the  Germany  of  Koerner  and  Andreas 
Hofer  against  Napoleonic  France;  and  to-day 
they  ought  to  be  with  the  Belgian  and  French 
patriots  against  the  Germany  of  the  Hohenzol- 
lerns.  To  oppose  England  now  because  in  1776 
we  fought  England  is  as  foolish  and  wicked  as 
it  would  be  now  to  oppose  Germany  because  in 
that  same  Revolutionary  War  masses  of  German 
mercenaries  fought  against  us.  I  have  certainly 
never  hesitated,  and  at  this  moment  am  not  hesi- 
tating, to  condemn  my  own  country  and  my  own 
countrymen  when  it  and  they  are  wrong.  I 
would  just  as  unhesitatingly  condemn  England, 
France,  or  Russia  if  any  one  of  them  should  in 
the  future  behave  as  Germany  is  now  behaving. 
I  shall  stand  by  Germany  in  the  future  on  any 
occasion  when  its  conduct  permits  me  so  to  do. 
We  must  not  be  vindictive,  or  prone  to  remember 
injuries;  we  need  forgiveness,  and  we  must  be 
ready  to  grant  forgiveness.  When  an  injury  is 
past  and  is  atoned  for,  it  would  be  wicked  to 
hold  it  in  mind.  We  must  do  justice  as  the  facts 
at  the  moment  demand. 

Abraham  Lincoln,  with  his  far-seeing  vision 
and  his  shrewd,  homely  common  sense,  set  forth 
the  doctrine  which  is  right  both  as  regards  in- 
dividuals and  as  regards  nations  when  he  said: 
"Stand  with  anybody  that  stands  right.  Stand 
with  him  while  he  is  right  and  part  with  him 



when  he  goes  wrong.  To  desert  such  ground 
because  of  any  company  is  to  be  less  than  a  man, 
less  than  an  American."  As  things  actually  are 
at  this  moment,  it  is  Germany  which  has  offended 
against  civilization  and  humanity — some  of  the 
offences,  of  a  very  grave  kind,  being  at  our  own 
expense.  It  is  the  Allies  who  are  dedicated  to 
the  cause  and  are  fighting  for  the  principles  set 
forth  as  fundamental  in  the  speech  of  Abraham 
Lincoln  at  Gettysburg.  It  is  they  who  have 
highly  resolved  that  their  dead  shall  not  have 
died  in  vain,  and  that  government  of  the  people, 
by  the  people,  and  for  the  people  shall  not  perish 
from  the  face  of  the  earth.  And  we  have  stood 
aside  and,  as  a  nation,  have  not  ventured  even 
to  say  one  word,  far  less  to  take  any  action,  for 
the  right  or  against  the  wrong. 

To  those  persons  who  fifty  years  ago  cried  for 
peace  without  regard  to  justice  or  righteousness, 
for  the  peace  of  cowardice,  Abraham  Lincoln  an- 
swered in  words  that  apply  to-day.  These  words 
appropriately  answer  the  sinister  or  silly  crea- 
tures— including  especially  the  silly  or  sinister 
Americans — who  now  likewise  demand  a  peace 
acceptable  only  to  the  fool,  the  weakling,  and  the 
craven — a  peace  that  would  consecrate  triumph- 
ant wrong  and  leave  right  bound  and  helpless. 
Said  Lincoln,  "The  issue  before  us  is  distinct, 
simple,  and  inflexible.  It  is  an  issue  which  can 



only  be  tried  by  war  and  settled  by  victory.  The 
war  will  cease  on  the  part  of  this  government 
whenever  it  shall  have  ceased  on  the  part  of  those 
who  began  it.  ...  We  accepted  war  rather  than 
let  the  nation  perish.  With  malice  towards  none, 
with  charity  for  all,  with  firmness  in  the  right 
as  God  gives  us  to  see  the  right,  let  us  strive  on 
to  finish  the  work  we  are  in,  and  to  do  all  which 
may  achieve  a  just  and  lasting  peace  among  all 

Surely,  with  the  barest  change  of  a  few  words, 
all  that  Lincoln  said  applies  now  to  the  war  the 
Allies  are  waging  on  behalf  of  orderly  liberty 
and  self-government  for  the  peoples  of  mankind. 
They  have  accepted  war  rather  than  let  the  free 
nations  of  Europe  perish.  They  must  strive  on 
to  finish  the  work  they  are  in,  and  to  achieve  a 
just  and  lasting  peace  which  shall  redress  wrong 
and  secure  the  liberties  of  the  nations  which  have 
been  assailed. 

We  Americans  must  pay  to  the  great  truths 
set  forth  by  Lincoln  a  loyalty  of  the  heart  and 
not  of  the  lips  only.  In  this  crisis  I  hold  that  we 
have  signally  failed  in  our  duty  to  Belgium  and 
Armenia,  and  in  our  duty  to  ourselves.  In  this 
crisis  I  hold  that  the  Allies  are  standing  for  the 
principles  to  which  Abraham  Lincoln  said  this 
country  was  dedicated;  and  the  rulers  of  Ger- 
many have,  in  practical  fashion,  shown  this  to 



be  the  case  by  conducting  a  campaign  against 
Americans  on  the  ocean,  which  has  resulted  in 
the  wholesale  murder  of  American  men,  women, 
and  children,  and  by  conducting  within  our  own 
borders  a  campaign  of  the  bomb  and  the  torch 
against  American  industries.  They  have  car- 
ried on  war  against  our  people;  for  wholesale 
and  repeated  killing  is  war — even  though  the 
killing  takes  the  shape  of  assassination  of  non- 
combatants,  instead  of  battle  against  armed  men. 

It  is  a  curious  commentary  on  the  folly  of  the 
professional  pacifists  among  my  fellow-country- 
men that  they  should  applaud  a  "peace"  to  be 
obtained  by  conceding  triumph  to  these  wrong- 
doers. It  is  a  no  less  curious  commentary  on 
the  attitude  of  the  rulers  of  Germany  that  at 
the  moment  when  they  are  forcing  the  Belgian 
people  to  aid  in  the  manufacture  of  materials 
of  war  to  be  used  against  their  own  countrymen, 
they  are  also  protesting  against  the  United  States 
manufacturing  such  materials  for  the  use  of 
those  who  are  seeking  to  free  Belgium  from  the 
dreadful  brutality  of  which  it  has  been  the  victim. 

It  is  always  hard  to  make  a  democracy  pre- 
pare in  advance  against  dangers  which  only  the 
farsighted  see  to  be  imminent.  Even  in  France 
there  were  wellr-meaning  men,  who  but  a  few 
years  ago  did  not  realize  the  danger  that  hung 
over  their  land,  and  who  then  strove  against  ade- 



quate  preparedness.  In  England,  which  was  by 
no  means  in  the  same  danger  as  France,  there 
were  far  more  of  these  men — just  as  there  are 
far  more  of  them  in  our  own  country  than  in 
England.  Almost  all  these  men,  both  in  France 
and  in  England,  are  now  doing  everything  in 
their  power  to  atone  for  the  error  they  formerly 
committed,  an  error  for  which  they  and  their 
fellow  countrymen  have  paid  a  bitter  price  of 
blood  and  tears.  In  our  land,  however,  the  men 
of  this  stamp  have  not  learned  these  lessons, 
and  with  evil  folly  are  endeavoring  to  plunge 
the  nation  into  an  abyss  of  disaster  by  preventing 
it  from  so  preparing  as  to  remove  the  chance  of 
disaster.  France  has  learned  her  lesson  in  the 
hard  school  of  invasion  and  necessity;  England 
has  been  slower  to  learn,  because  the  war  was 
not  in  her  home  territory;  and  our  own  politi- 
cians, and  to  a  lamentably  large  degree  our  own 
people,  are  fatuously  unable  to  profit  by  what 
has  happened,  because  they  lack  the  power  to 
visualize  either  the  present  woe  of  others  or  the 
future  danger  to  themselves. 

France  has  shown  a  heroism  and  a  loftiness 
of  soul  worthy  of  Joan  of  Arc  herself.  She  was 
better  prepared  than  either  of  her  allies,  per- 
haps because  the  danger  to  her  was  more  im- 
minent and  more  terrible,  and  therefore  more 
readily  understood;  and  since  the  first  month  of 



the  war  she  has  done  everything  that  it  was  in 
human  power  to  do.  The  unity,  the  quiet  reso- 
lution, the  spirit  of  self-sacrifice  among  her  peo- 
ple— soldiers  and  civilians,  men  and  women — are 
of  a  noble  type.  The  soul  of  France,  at  this  mo- 
ment, seems  purified  of  all  dross;  it  burns  like 
the  clear  flame  of  fire  on  a  sacred  tripod.  French- 
men are  not  only  a  gallant  but  a  generous  race; 
and  France  realizes  that  England  and  Russia 
are  now  both  bearing  their  share  of  the  burden 
in  the  same  spirit  that  France  herself  has  shown. 

Russia's  sufferings  have  been  sore,  but  it  is 
not  possible  to  overestimate  Russia's  tremendous 
tenacity  of  purpose  and  power  of  endurance. 
Russia  is  mighty,  and  her  future  looms  so  vast 
that  it  is  hardly  possible  to  overstate  it.  The 
Russian  people  feel  this  to  be  their  war.  Rus- 
sia's part  in  the  world  is  great,  and  will  be 
greater ;  it  is  well  that  she  should  stand  valiantly 
and  stubbornly  for  her  own  rights ;  and  as  a  firm 
and  ardent  friend  of  the  Russian  people  may  I 
add  that  Russia  will  stand  for  her  rights  all  the 
more  effectively  when  she  also  stands  for  the 
rights  of  Finn  and  Pole  and  Jew;  when  she 
learns  the  lesson  that  we  Americans  must  also 
learn — to  grant  every  man  his  full  rights,  and 
to  exact  from  each  man  the  full  performance  of 
his  duty. 

The  English  navy  was  mobilized  with  a  ra- 


pidity  and  efficiency  as  great  as  that  of  the  Ger- 
man army.  It  has  driven  every  warship,  except 
an  occasional  submarine,  and  every  merchant- 
ship  of  Germany  off  the  seas,  and  has  kept  the 
ocean  as  a  highway  of  life  not  only  for  England, 
but  for  France,  and  largely  also  for  Russia.  In 
all  history  there  has  been  no  such  gigantic  and 
successful  naval  feat  accomplished  as  that  which 
the  seamen  and  shipwrights  of  England  have  to 
their  credit  during  the  last  eighteen  months.  It 
was  not  originally  expected  that  England  would 
have  to  do  much  on  the  continent;  and  although 
her  wisest  sons  emphatically  desired  that  she 
should  be  ready  to  do  more,  yet  this  desire  repre- 
sented only  a  recognition  of  the  duty  owed  by 
England  to  herself.  To  her  Allies  she  has  more 
than  kept  the  promise  she  has  made.  She  has 
given  Russia  the  financial  assistance  that  none 
but  she  could  give;  her  money  effort  has  been 
unparalleled  in  all  previous  history.  Eighteen 
months  ago  no  Frenchman  would  have  expected 
that  in  the  event  of  war  England  would  do  more 
than  put  a  couple  of  hundred  thousand  men  in 
France.  She  has  already  put  in  a  million,  and 
is  training  and  arming  more  than  double  that 
number.  Her  soldiers  have  done  their  duty 
fearlessly  and  well;  they  have  won  high  honor 
on  the  fields  of  horror  and  glory;  they  have 
shown  the  same  gallantry  and  stubborn  valor 



that  have  been  so  evident  in  the  armies  of  France 
and  Russia.  Her  women  are  working  with 
all  the  steadfast  courage  and  self-sacrifice  that 
the  women  of  France  have  shown.  Her  men 
from  every  class  have  thronged  into  the  army. 
Her  fisher  folk,  and  her  seafarers  generally,  have 
come  forward  in  such  numbers  that  her  fleet  is 
nearly  double  as  strong  as  it  was  at  the  outset 
of  the  war.  Her  mines  and  war  factories  have 
steadily  enlarged  their  output,  and  it  is  now 
enormous,  although  many  of  the  factories  had 
literally  to  build  from  the  ground  up,  and  the 
very  plant  itself  had  to  be  created.  Coal,  food, 
guns,  munitions,  are  being  supplied  with  sus- 
tained energy.  From  across  the  sea  the  free 
Commonwealths  of  Canada,  Australia,  New  Zea- 
land, and  South  Africa,  and  the  Indian  Empire, 
have  responded  with  splendid  loyalty,  and  have 
sent  their  sons  from  the  ends  of  the  earth  to 
do  battle  for  liberty  and  civilization.  Of  Can- 
ada I  can  speak  from  personal  knowledge.  Can- 
ada has  faced  the  time  that  tries  men's  souls, 
and  with  gallant  heroism  she  has  risen  level  to 
the  time's  need.  Mighty  days  have  come  to  her, 
and  she  has  been  equal  to  the  mighty  days. 
Greatness  comes  only  through  labor  and  cour- 
age, through  the  iron  willingness  to  face  sorrow 
and  death,  the  tears  of  women  and  the  blood  of 
men,  if  only  thereby  it  is  possible  to  serve  a  lofty 



ideal.  Canada  has  won  that  honorable  place 
among  the  nations  of  the  past  and  the  present 
which  can  only  come  to  the  people  whose  sons 
are  willing  and  able  to  dare  and  do  and  die  at 
need.  The  spirit  shown  by  her  sister-common- 
wealths is  the  same.  High  of  heart  and  un- 
daunted of  soul  the  men  and  women  of  the 
British  Islands  and  of  the  whole  British  Empire 
now  front  the  crisis  that  is  upon  them. 

Having  said  all  this,  let  me  point  out,  purely 
for  the  instruction  of  our  own  people,  that,  ex- 
cepting always  as  regards  her  navy,  England 
has  been  much  less  effective  than  she  should  have 
been  in  the  use  of  her  strength  during  these  first 
eighteen  months  of  war.  This  is  because  she  had 
not  prepared  in  advance,  because  she  had  not  ac- 
cepted the  advice  of  Lord  Roberts.  If  all  her 
sons  had  been  trained  under  a  system  of  uni- 
versal service,  and  if  it  had  been  clearly  under- 
stood that  in  war  time  neither  undue  profit-mak- 
ing by  capitalists  nor  striking  by  workingmen 
would  be  tolerated — for  universal  service  means 
that  each  man  is  to  serve  the  nation,  and  not  him- 
self, in  whatever  way  is  necessary — there  would 
have  been  no  invasion  of  Belgium,  and  no  long- 
drawn  and  disastrous  war.  Nine-tenths  of  wis- 
dom consists  in  being  wise  in  time!  Universal 
training  in  time  of  peace  may  avert  war,  and 
if  war  comes  will  certainly  avert  incalculable 



waste  and  extravagance  and  bloodshed  and  pos- 
sible ultimate  failure.  Let  us  of  the  United 
States  learn  the  lesson.  Let  us  inaugurate  a  sys- 
tem of  obligatory  universal  military  training,  and 
instill  into  our  sons  the  spirit  of  intense  and  ex- 
clusive loyalty  to  the  United  States.  Let  ours 
be  true  Americanism,  the  greater  Americanism, 
and  let  us  tolerate  no  other.  Let  us  prepare  our- 
selves for  justice  and  efficiency  within  our  own 
border  during  peace,  for  justice  in  international 
relations,  and  for  efficiency  in  war.  Only  thus 
shall  we  have  the  peace  worth  having. 

Let  this  nation  fear  God  and  take  its  own  part. 
Let  it  scorn  to  do  wrong  to  great  or  small.  Let 
it  exercise  patience  and  charity  toward  all  other 
peoples,  and  yet  at  whatever  cost  unflinchingly 
stand  for  the  right  when  the  right  is  menaced 
by  the  might  which  backs  wrong.  Let  it  further- 
more remember  that  the  only  way  in  which  suc- 
cessfully to  oppose  wrong  which  is  backed  by 
might  is  to  put  over  against  it  right  which  is 
backed  by  might.  Wanton  or  unjust  war  is  an 
abhorrent  evil.  But  there  are  even  worse  evils. 
Until,  as  a  nation,  we  learn  to  put  honor  and 
duty  above  safety,  and  to  encounter  any  hazard 
with  stern  joy  rather  than  fail  in  our  obliga- 
tions to  ourselves  and  others,  it  is  mere  folly 
to  talk  of  entering  into  leagues  for  world  peace 
or  into  any  other  movements  of  like  character. 



The  only  kind  of  peace  worth  having  is  the  peace 
of  righteousness  and  justice;  the  only  nation  that 
can  serve  other  nations  is  the  strong  and  valiant 
nation;  and  the  only  great  international  policies 
worth  considering  are  those  whose  upholders  be- 
lieve in  them  strongly  enough  to  fight  for  them. 
The  Monroe  Doctrine  is  as  strong  as  the  United 
States  navy,  and  no  stronger.  A  nation  is  ut- 
terly contemptible  if  it  will  not  fight  in  its  own 
defence.  A  nation  is  not  wholly  admirable  un- 
less in  time  of  stress  it  will  go  to  war  for  a  great 
ideal  wholly  unconnected  with  its  immediate  ma- 
terial interest. 

Let  us  prepare  not  merely  in  military  matters, 
but  in  our  social  and  industrial  life.  There  can 
be  no  sound  relationship  toward  other  nations 
unless  there  is  also  sound  relationship  among  our 
own  citizens  within  our  own  ranks.  Let  us  in- 
sist on  the  thorough  Americanization  of  the 
newcomers  to  our  shores,  and  let  us  also  insist 
on  the  thorough  Americanization  of  ourselves. 
Let  us  encourage  the  fullest  industrial  activity, 
and  give  the  amplest  industrial  reward  to  those 
whose  activities  are  most  important  for  securing 
industrial  success,  and  at  the  same  time  let  us 
see  that  justice  is  done  and  wisdom  shown  in 
securing  the  welfare  of  every  man,  woman,  and 
child  within  our  borders.  Finally,  let  us  remem- 
ber that  we  can  do  nothing  to  help  other  peo- 



pies,  and  nothing  permanently  to  secure  material 
well-being  and  social  justice  within  our  own  bor- 
ders, unless  we  feel  with  all  our  hearts  devotion 
to  this  country,  unless  we  are  Americans  and 
nothing  else,  and  unless  in  time  of  peace  by 
universal  military  training,  by  insistence  upon 
the  obligations  of  every  man  and  every  woman 
to  serve  the  commonwealth  both  in  peace  and 
war,  and,  above  all,  by  a  high  and  fine  prepared- 
ness of  soul  and  spirit,  we  fit  ourselves  to  hold 
our  own  against  all  possible  aggression  from 

We  are  the  citizens  of  a  mighty  Republic  con- 
secrated to  the  service  of  God  above,  through 
the  service  of  man  on  this  earth.  We  are  the 
heirs  of  a  great  heritage  bequeathed  to  us  by 
statesmen  who  saw  with  the  eyes  of  the  seer  and 
the  prophet.  We  must  not  prove  false  to  the 
memories  of  the  nation's  past.  We  must  not 
prove  false  to  the  fathers  from  whose  loins  we 
sprang,  and  to  their  fathers,  the  stern  men  who 
dared  greatly  and  risked  all  things  that  freedom 
should  hold  aloft  an  undimmed  torch  in  this  wide 
land.  They  held  their  worldly  well-being  as  dust 
in  the  balance  when  weighed  against  their  sense 
of  high  duty,  their  fealty  to  lofty  ideals.  Let  us 
show  ourselves  worthy  to  be  their  sons.  Let  us 
care,  as  is  right,  for  the  things  of  the  body;  but 
let  us  show  that  we  care  even  more  for  the  things 


of  the  soul.  Stout  of  heart,  and  pledged  to  the 
valor  of  righteousness,  let  us  stand  four-square 
to  the  winds  of  destiny,  from  whatever  corner  of 
the  world  they  blow.  Let  us  keep  untarnished, 
unstained,  the  honor  of  the  flag  our  fathers 
bore  aloft  in  the  teeth  of  the  wildest  storm,  the 
flag  that  shall  float  above  the  solid  files  of  a 
united  people,  a  people  sworn  to  the  great  cause 
of  liberty  and  of  justice,  for  themselves,  and  for 
all  the  sons  and  daughters  of  men. 



IN  December  last  I  was  asked  to  address  the 
American  Sociological  Congress  on  "the  ef- 
fect of  war  and  militarism  on  social  values."  In 
sending  my  answer  I  pointed  out  that  infinitely 
the  most  important  fact  to  remember  in  connec- 
tion with  the  subject  in  question  is  that  if  an  un- 
scrupulous, warlike,  and  militaristic  nation  is  not 
held  in  check  by  the  warlike  ability  of  a  neigh- 
boring non-militaristic  and  well-behaved  nation, 
then  the  latter  will  be  spared  the  necessity  of 
dealing  with  its  own  "moral  and  social  values" 
because  it  won't  be  allowed  to  deal  with  anything. 
Until  this  fact  is  thoroughly  recognized,  and  the 
duty  of  national  preparedness  by  justice-loving 
nations  explicitly  acknowledged,  there  is  very 
little  use  of  solemnly  debating  such  questions  as 
the  one  which  the  sociological  congress  assigned 
me — which,  in  detail,  was  "How  war  and  militar- 
ism affect  such  social  values  as  the  sense  of  the 
preciousness  of  human  life;  care  for  child  wel- 
fare; the  conservation  of  human  resources;  up- 



per-class  concern  for  the  lot  of  the  masses;  in- 
terest in  popular  education ;  appreciation  of  truth- 
telling  and  truth-printing;  respect  for  personality 
and  regard  for  personal  rights."  It  seems  to  me 
positively  comic  to  fail  to  appreciate,  with  the  ex- 
ample of  Belgium  before  our  eyes,  that  the  real 
question  which  modern  peace-loving  nations  have 
to  face  is  not  how  the  militaristic  or  warlike 
spirit  within  their  own  borders  will  affect  these 
"values,"  but  how  failure  on  their  part  to  be  able 
to  resist  the  militarism  of  an  unscrupulous  neigh- 
bor will  affect  them.  Belgium  had  a  very  keen 
sense  of  the  "preciousness  of  human  life"  and 
of  "the  need  for  the  care  of  child  welfare  and 
the  conservation  of  human  resources,"  and  there 
was  much  "concern"  by  the  Belgian  "upper 
classes  for  the  lot  of  the  masses,"  great  "interest 
in  popular  education  and  appreciation  of  truth- 
telling  and  truth-printing  and  a  high  respect  for 
personality  and  regard  for  personal  rights."  But 
all  these  "social  values"  existed  in  Belgium  only 
up  to  the  end  of  July,  1914.  Not  a  vestige  of 
them  remained  in  1915.  To  discuss  them  as  re- 
gards present-day  Belgium  is  sheer  prattle,  sim- 
ply because  on  August  4,  1914,  Belgium  had  not 
prepared  her  military  strength  so  that  she  could 
put  on  her  frontiers  at  least  half  a  million  thor- 
oughly armed  and  trained  men  of  fighting  spirit. 
In  similar  fashion  the  question  of  the  internal 



reformation  of  China  at  this  moment  is  wholly 
secondary  to  the  question  whether  any  China 
will  remain  to  be  reformed  internally.  A  Chi- 
nese gentleman  wrote  me  the  other  day  that  he 
had  formerly  been  absorbed  in  plans  for  bring- 
ing China  abreast  of  the  modern  movement,  but 
that  the  events  of  the  past  year  had  shown  him 
that  what  he  really  ought  to  be  absorbed  in  was 
the  question  whether  or  not  China  would  be  able 
by  military  preparation  to  save  itself  from  the 
fate  of  Korea.  Korean  "social  values"  now  have 
to  be  studied  exclusively  through  a  Japanese  me- 
dium. At  this  moment  the  Armenians,  who  for 
some  centuries  have  sedulously  avoided  milita- 
rism and  war,  and  have  practically  applied  ad- 
vanced pacifist  principles,  are  suffering  a  fate, 
if  possible,  worse  than  that  of  the  Belgians;  and 
they  are  so  suffering  precisely  and  exactly  be- 
cause they  have  been  pacificists  whereas  their 
neighbors,  the  Turks,  have  not  been  pacifists 
but  militarists.  They  haven't  the  vestige  of  a 
"social  value"  left,  to  be  "affected"  by  militarism 
or  by  anything  else. 

In  the  thirteenth  century  Persia  had  become  a 
highly  civilized  nation,  with  a  cultivated  class  of 
literary  men  and  philosophers,  with  universities, 
and  with  great  mercantile  interests.  These  lit- 
erary men  and  merchants  took  toward  the  reali- 
ties of  war  much  the  same  attitude  that  is  taken 



in  our  own  country  by  gentlemen  of  the  stamp 
of  Messrs.  David  Starr  Jordan  and  Henry  Ford. 
Unfortunately  for  these  predecessors  of  the  mod- 
ern pacifists,  they  were  within  striking  distance 
of  Genghis  Khan  and  his  Mongols;  and,  as  of 
course  invariably  happens  in  such  a  case,  when 
the  onrush  came,  the  pacifists'  theories  were 
worth  just  about  what  a  tissue-paper  barrier 
would  amount  to  against  a  tidal  wave.  Russia 
at  that  time  was  slowly  struggling  upward 
toward  civilization.  She  had  become  Christian. 
She  was  developing  industry,  and  she  was  strug- 
gling toward  individual  freedom.  In  other 
words,  she  was  in  halting  fashion  developing  the 
"social  values"  of  which  the  foregoing  extract 
speaks.  But  she  had  not  developed  military  ef- 
ficiency ;  she  had  not  developed  efficiency  in  war. 
The  Mongols  overwhelmed  her  as  fire  over- 
whelms stubble.  For  two  centuries  the  Russians 
were  trodden  under  foot  by  an  alien  dominion 
so  ruthless,  so  brutal,  that  when  they  finally 
shook  it  off,  all  popular  freedom  had  been  lost 
and  the  soul  of  the  nation  seared  by  torment  and 
degradation;  and  to  this  day  the  scars  remain 
on  the  national  life  and  character.  The  chief 
difficulties  against  which  Russia  has  had  to 
struggle  in  modern  times  are  due  ultimately  to 
the  one  all-essential  fact  that  in  the  early  part 
of  the  thirteenth  century  she  had  not  developed 



the  warlike  strength  to  enable  her  to  hold  her 
own  against  a  militaristic  neighbor.  The  Rus- 
sian Jew  of  to-day  is  oppressed  by  the  Russian 
Christian  because  that  Christian's  ancestor  in 
the  thirteenth  century  had  not  learned  efficiency 
in  war. 

There  are  well-meaning  people,  utterly  incap- 
able of  learning  any  lesson  taught  by  history, 
utterly  incapable  even  of  understanding  aright 
what  has  gone  on  before  their  very  eyes  during 
the  past  year  or  two,  who  nevertheless  wish  to 
turn  this  country  into  an  occidental  China — the 
kind  of  China  which  every  intelligent  Chinaman 
of  the  present  day  is  seeking  to  abolish.  There 
are  plenty  of  politicians,  by  no  means  as  well 
meaning,  who  find  it  to  their  profit  to  pander 
to  the  desire  common  to  most  men  to  live  softly 
and  easily  and  avoid  risk  and  effort.  Timid  and 
lazy  men,  men  absorbed  in  money-getting,  men 
absorbed  in  ease  and  luxury,  and  all  soft  and 
slothful  people  naturally  hail  with  delight  any- 
body who  will  give  them  high-sounding  names 
behind  which  to  cloak  their  unwillingness  to 
run  risks  or  to  toil  and  endure.  Emotional  phil- 
anthropists to  whom  thinking  is  a  distasteful 
form  of  mental  exercise  enthusiastically  cham- 
pion this  attitude.  The  faults  of  all  these  men 
and  women  are  of  a  highly  non-militaristic  and 
unwarlike  type;  and  naturally  they  feel  great 



satisfaction  in  condemning  misdeeds  which  are 
incident  to  lives  that  they  would  themselves  be 
wholly  unable  to  lead  without  an  amount  of  toil 
and  effort  that  they  are  wholly  unwilling  to  un- 
dergo. These  men  and  women  are  delighted  to 
pass  resolutions  in  favor  of  anything  with  a 
lofty  name,  provided  always  that  no  demand  is 
ever  made  upon  them  to  pay  with  their  bodies  to 
even  the  smallest  degree  in  order  to  give  effect 
to  these  lofty  sentiments.  It  is  questionable 
whether  in  the  long  run  they  do  not  form  a  less 
desirable  national  type  than  is  formed  by  the 
men  who  are  guilty  of  the  downright  iniquities 
of  life;  for  the  latter  at  least  have  in  them  ele- 
ments of  strength  which,  if  guided  aright,  could 
be  used  to  good  purpose. 

Now,  it  is  probably  hopeless  ever  to  convince 
the  majority  of  these  men  except  by  actual  disas- 
ter that  the  course  they  follow  is  not  merely 
wicked,  because  of  its  subordination  of  duty  to 
ease,  but  from  their  own  standpoint  utterly  short- 
sighted— as  the  fate  of  the  Armenians  and  the 
Chinese  of  the  present  day  shows.  But  I  believe 
that  the  bulk  of  our  people  are  willing  to  follow 
duty,  even  though  it  be  rather  unpleasant  and 
rather  hard,  if  it  can  be  made  clearly  evident 
to  them;  and,  moreover,  I  believe  that  they  are 
capable  of  looking  ahead,  and  of  considering  the 
ultimate  interest  of  themselves  and  their  chil- 



dren,  if  only  they  can  be  waked  up  to  vital  na- 
tional needs.  The  members  of  Sociological  So- 
cieties and  kindred  organizations,  and  philan- 
thropists, and  clergymen,  and  educators,  and  all 
other  leading  men,  should  pride  themselves  on 
furnishing  leadership  in  the  right  direction  to 
these  men  and  women  who  wish  to  do  what  is 

The  first  thing  to  do  is  to  make  these  citizens 
understand  that  war  and  militarism  are  terms 
whose  values  depend  wholly  upon  the  sense  in 
which  they  are  used.  The  second  thing  is  to 
make  them  understand  that  there  is  a  real 
analogy  between  the  use  of  force  in  international 
and  the  use  of  force  in  intra-national  or  civil 
matters;  although  of  course  this  analogy  must 
not  be  pushed  too  far. 

In  the  first  place,  we  are  dealing  with  a  mat- 
ter of  definition.  A  war  can  be  defined  as  vio 
lence  between  nations,  as  the  use  of  force  be- 
tween nations.  It  is  analogous  to  violence 
between  individuals  within  a  nation — using  vio- 
lence in  a  large  sense  as  equivalent  to  the  use  of 
force.  When  this  fact  is  clearly  grasped,  the 
average  citizen  will  be  spared  the  mental  con- 
fusion he  now  suffers  because  he  thinks  of  war 
as  in  itself  wrong.  War,  like  peace,  is  properly 
a  means  to  an  end — righteousness.  Neither  war 
nor  peace  is  in  itself  righteous,  and  neither  should 



be  treated  as  of  itself  the  end  to  be  aimed  at. 
Righteousness  is  the  end.  Righteousness  when 
triumphant  brings  peace;  but  peace  may  not 
bring  righteousness.  Whether  war  is  right  or 
wrong  depends  purely  upon  the  purpose  for 
which,  and  the  spirit  in  which,  it  is  waged.  Here 
the  analogy  with  what  takes  place  in  civil  life 
is  perfect.  The  exertion  of  force  or  violence 
by  which  one  man  masters  another  may  be  illus- 
trated by  the  case  of  a  black-hander  who  kidnaps 
a  child,  knocking  down  the  nurse  or  guardian; 
and  it  may  also  be  illustrated  by  the  case  of  the 
guardian  who  by  violence  withstands  and  thwarts 
the  black-hander  in  his  efforts  to  kidnap  the  child, 
or  by  the  case  of  the  policeman  who  by  force  ar- 
rests the  black-hander  or  white-slaver  or  who- 
ever it  is  and  takes  his  victim  away  from  him. 
There  are,  of  course,  persons  who  believe  that 
all  force  is  immoral,  that  it  is  always  immoral 
to  resist  wrongdoing  by  force.  I  have  never 
taken  much  interest  in  the  individuals  who  pro- 
fess this  kind  of  twisted  morality;  and  I  do  not 
know  the  extent  to  which  they  practically  apply 
it.  But  if  they  are  right  in  their  theory,  then  it 
is  wrong  for  a  man  to  endeavor  by  force  to 
save  his  wife  or  sister  or  daughter  from  rape 
or  other  abuse,  or  to  save  his  children  from  ab- 
duction and  torture.  It  is  a  waste  of  time  to 
discuss  with  any  man  a  position  of  such  folly, 



wickedness,  and  poltroonery.  But  unless  a  man 
is  willing  to  take  this  position,  he  cannot  hon- 
estly condemn  the  use  of  force  or  violence  in 
war — for  the  policeman  who  risks  and  perhaps 
loses  or  takes  life  in  dealing  with  an  anarchist 
or  white-slaver  or  black-hander  or  burglar  or 
highwayman  must  be  justified  or  condemned  on 
precisely  the  same  principles  which  require  us 
to  differentiate  among  wars  and  to  condemn  un- 
stintedly certain  nations  in  certain  wars  and 
equally  without  stint  to  praise  other  nations  in 
certain  other  wars. 

If  the  man  who  objects  to  war  also  objects  to 
the  use  of  force  in  civil  life  as  above  outlined, 
his  position  is  logical,  although  both  absurd  and 
wicked.  If  the  college  presidents,  politicians, 
automobile  manufacturers,  and  the  like,  who  dur- 
ing the  past  year  or  two  have  preached  pacifism 
in  its  most  ignoble  and  degrading  form  are  will- 
ing to  think  out  the  subject  and  are  both  sincere 
and  fairly  intelligent,  they  must  necessarily  con- 
demn a  police  force  or  a  posse  comitatus  just 
as  much  as  they  condemn  armies ;  and  they  must 
regard  the  activities  of  the  sheriff  and  the  con- 
stable as  being  essentially  militaristic  and  there- 
fore to  be  abolished. 

There  are  small  communities  with  which  I  am 
personally  acquainted  where  the  general  prog- 
ress has  been  such  as  really  to  permit  of  this 



abolition  of  the  policeman.  In  these  communi- 
ties— and  I  have  in  mind  specifically  one  in  New 
England  and  one  in  the  Province  of  Quebec — 
the  constable  and  sheriff  have  no  duties  what- 
ever to  perform,  so  far  as  crimes  or  deeds  of 
violence  are  concerned.  The  "social  values"  in 
these  communities  are  not  in  any  way  affected  by 
either  the  international  militarism  of  the  soldier 
or  by  the  civil  militarism  of  the  policeman,  and 
on  the  whole  good  results;  although  I  regret  to 
say  that  in  each  of  the  two  communities  I  have 
in  mind  there  have  been  some  social  develop- 
ments that  were  not  pleasant. 

We  ought  all  of  us  to  endeavor  to  shape  our 
action  with  a  view  to  extending  so  far  as  pos- 
sible the  area  in  which  such  conditions  can  be 
made  to  obtain.  But  at  present  the  area  cannot, 
as  a  matter  of  plain  fact,  be  extended  to  most 
populous  communities,  or  even  to  ordinary  scan- 
tily peopled  communities;  and  to  make  believe 
that  it  can  be  thus  extended  is  a  proof,  not  of 
goodness  of  heart,  but  of  softness  of  head. 

As  a  matter  of  practical  common  sense  it  is 
not  worth  while  spending  much  time  at  this  mo- 
ment in  discussing  whether  we  ought  to  take 
steps  to  abolish  the  police  force  in  New  York, 
Chicago,  San  Francisco,  or  Montreal,  because 
no  police  force  is  needed  in  a  certain  Vermont 
town  or  a  certain  Quebec  village.  Such  a  dis- 



cussion  would  not  help  us  in  the  least  toward  an 
appreciation  and  development  of  the  "social 
values"  of  any  one  of  the  big  cities  in  question. 
Exactly  the  same  principle,  only  a  fortiori,  ap- 
plies as  regards  war.  On  the  whole,  there  is  a 
much  greater  equality  of  intellectual  and  moral 
status  among  the  individuals  in  a  great  civilized 
community  than  there  is  between  the  various  na- 
tions and  peoples  of  the  earth.  The  task  of  get- 
ting all  the  policemen,  all  the  college  professors, 
all  the  business  men  and  mechanics,  and  also  all 
the  professional  crooks,  in  New  York  to  abandon 
the  reign  of  force  and  to  live  together  in  har- 
mony without  any  police  force  would  be  undoubt- 
edly very  much  easier  than  to  secure  a  similar 
working  agreement  among  the  various  peoples  of 
Europe,  America,  Asia,  and  Africa.  One  of  the 
commonest  failings  of  mankind  is  to  try  to  make 
amends  for  failure  to  perform  the  duty  at  hand 
by  grandiloquent  talk  about  something  that  is 
afar  off.  Most  of  our  worthy  pacifist  friends 
adopt  in  this  matter  the  attitude  Mrs.  Jellyby  took 
towards  foreign  missions  when  compared  with 
her  own  domestic  and  neighborhood  duties.  In- 
stead of  meeting  together  and  passing  resolutions 
to  affect  the  whole  world,  let  them  deal  with 
the  much  easier  task  of  regulating  their  own  lo- 
calities. When  we  have  discovered  a  method 
by  which  right  living  may  be  spread  so  univer- 



sally  in  Chicago  and  New  York  that  the  two 
cities  can  with  safety  abolish  their  police  forces, 
then,  and  not  till  then,  it  will  be  worth  while  to 
talk  about  "the  abolition  of  war."  Until  that 
time  the  discussion  will  not  possess  even  academic 

The  really  essential  things  for  men  to  remem- 
ber, therefore,  in  connection  with  war  are,  first, 
that  neither  war  nor  peace  is  immoral  in  itself, 
and,  secondly,  that  in  order  to  preserve  the  "so- 
cial values"  which  were  enumerated  in  the  quo- 
tation with  which  I  began  this  chapter  it  is  ab- 
solutely essential  to  prevent  the  dominance  in 
our  country  of  the  one  form  of  militarism  which 
is  surely  and  completely  fatal — that  is,  the  mili- 
tary dominion  of  an  alien  enemy. 

It  is  utterly  impossible  to  appreciate  social 
values  at  all  or  to  discriminate  between  what  is 
socially  good  and  socially  bad  unless  we  appre- 
ciate the  utterly  different  social  values  of  dif- 
ferent wars.  The  Greeks  who  triumphed  at 
Marathon  and  Salamis  did  a  work  without  which 
the  world  would  have  been  deprived  of  the  so- 
cial value  of  Plato  and  Aristotle,  of  Aeschylus, 
Herodotus,  and  Thucydides.  The  civilization  of 
Europe,  America,  and  Australia  exists  to-day  at 
all  only  because  of  the  victories  of  civilized  man 
over  the  enemies  of  civilization,  because  of  vic- 
tories stretching  through  the  centuries  from  the 



days  of  Miltiades  and  Themistocles  to  those  of 
Charles  Martel  in  the  eighth  century  and  those 
of  John  Sobieski  in  the  seventeenth  century. 
During  the  thousand  years  that  included  the  ca- 
reers of  the  Prankish  soldier  and  the  Polish  king, 
the  Christians  of  Asia  and  Africa  proved  un- 
able to  wage  successful  war  with  the  Moslem 
conquerors;  and  in  consequence  Christianity 
practically  vanished  from  the  two  continents ;  and 
to-day  nobody  can  find  in  them  any  "social  val- 
ues" whatever,  in  the  sense  in  which  we  use  the 
words,  so  far  as  the  sphere  of  Mohammedan  in- 
fluence and  the  decaying  native  Christian 
churches  are  concerned.  There  are  such  "social 
values"  to-day  in  Europe,  America,  and  Austra- 
lia only  because  during  those  thousand  years  the 
Christians  of  Europe  possessed  the  warlike 
power  to  do  what  the  Christians  of  Asia  and 
Africa  had  failed  to  do — that  is,  to  beat  back 
the  Moslem  invader.  It  is  of  course  worth  while 
for  sociologists  to  discuss  the  effect  of  this  Eu- 
ropean militarism  on  "social  values,"  but  only  if 
they  first  clearly  realize  and  formulate  the  fact 
that  if  the  European  militarism  had  not  been 
able  to  defend  itself  against  and  to  overcome 
the  militarism  of  Asia  and  Africa,  there  would 
have  been  no  "social  values"  of  any  kind  in  our 
world  to-day,  and  no  sociologists  to  discuss  them. 
The  Sociological  Society  meets  at  Washing- 


ton  this  year  only  because  the  man  after  whom 
the  city  was  named  was  willing  to  go  to  war.  If 
he  and  his  associates  had  not  gone  to  war,  there 
would  have  been  no  possibility  of  discussing  "so- 
cial values"  in  the  United  States,  for  the  excel- 
lent reason  that  there  would  have  been  no  United 
States.  If  Lincoln  had  not  been  willing  to  go 
to  war,  to  appeal  to  the  sword,  to  introduce  mili- 
tarism on  a  tremendous  scale  throughout  the 
United  States,  the  sociologists  who  listened  to 
this  chapter,  when  it  was  read  to  them,  if  they 
existed  at  all,  would  not  be  considering  the  "so- 
cial values"  enumerated  above,  but  the  "social 
values"  of  slavery  and  of  such  governmental  and 
industrial  problems  as  can  now  be  studied  in 
the  Central  American  republics. 

It  is  a  curious  fact  that  during  the  thirty  years 
prior  to  the  Civil  War  the  men  who  in  the  North- 
ern and  especially  the  Northeastern  States  grad- 
ually grew  to  take  most  interest  in  the  anti-slav- 
ery agitation  were  almost  equally  interested  in 
anti-militaristic  and  peace  movements.  Even  a 
casual  glance  at  the  poems  of  Longfellow  and 
Whittier  will  show  this.  They  were  strong 
against  slavery  and  they  were  strong  against 
war.  They  did  not  take  the  trouble  to  think 
out  the  truth,  which  was  that  in  actual  fact  slav- 
ery could  be  abolished  only  by  war;  and  when 
the  time  came  they  had  to  choose  between,  on 



the  one  hand,  the  "social  values"  of  freedom  and 
of  union  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  "social 
value"  of  peace,  for  peace  proved  incompatible 
with  freedom  and  union.  Being  men  fit  to  live 
in  a  free  country,  they  of  course  chose  freedom 
and  union  rather  than  peace.  I  say  men;  of 
course  I  mean  women  also.  I  am  speaking  of 
Julia  Ward  Howe  and  Harriet  Beecher  Stowe 
just  exactly  as  I  am  speaking  of  Longfellow  and 
Lowell  and  Whittier. 

Now,  during  the  thirty  years  preceding  the 
Civil  War  these  men  and  women  often  debated 
and  occasionally  in  verse  or  prose  wrote  about 
the  effect  of  war  on  what  we  now  call  "social 
values."  I  think  that  academically  they  were  a 
unit  in  saying  that  this  effect  was  bad ;  but  when 
the  real  crisis  came,  when  they  were  faced  by 
the  actual  event,  they  realized  that  this  academic 
discussion  as  to  the  effect  of  war  on  "social 
values"  was  of  no  consequence  whatever.  They 
did  not  want  war.  Nobody  wants  war  who  has 
any  sense.  But  when  they  moved  out  of  a  world 
of  dreams  into  a  world  of  realities  they  realized 
that  now,  as  always  in  the  past  has  been  the 
case,  and  as  undoubtedly  will  be  the  case  for  a 
long  time  in  the  future,  war  may  be  the  only 
alternative  to  losing,  not  merely  certain  "social 
values,"  but  the  national  life  which  means  the 
sum  of  all  "social  values."  They  realized  that 



as  the  world  is  now  it  is  a  wicked  thing  to  use 
might  against  right,  and  an  unspeakably  silly, 
and  therefore  in  the  long  run  also  a  wicked 
thing,  to  chatter  about  right  without  preparing 
to  put  might  back  of  right.  They  abhorred  a 
wanton  or  an  unjust  war  and  condemned  those 
responsible  for  it  as  they  ought  always  to  be 
condemned ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  they  realized 
that  righteous  war  for  a  lofty  ideal  may  and 
often  does  offer  the  only  path  by  which  it  is 
possible  to  move  upward  and  onward.  There  are 
unquestionably  real  national  dangers  connected 
even  with  a  successful  war  for  righteousness; 
but  equally  without  question  there  are  real  na- 
tional dangers  connected  even  with  times  of 
righteous  peace.  There  are  dangers  attendant 
on  every  course,  dangers  to  be  fought  against 
in  every  kind  of  life,  whether  of  an  individual 
or  of  a  nation.  But  it  is  not  merely  danger,  it 
is  death,  the  death  of  the  soul  even  more  than 
the  death  of  the  body,  which  surely  awaits  the 
nation  that  does  not  both  cultivate  the  lofty 
morality  which  will  forbid  it  to  do  wrong  to 
others,  and  at  the  same  time  spiritually,  intel- 
lectually, and  physically  prepare  itself,  by  the 
development  of  the  stern  and  high  qualities  of 
the  soul  and  the  will  no  less  than  in  things  ma- 
terial, to  defend  by  its  own  strength  its  own 
existence;  and,  as  I  at  least  hope  some  time  will 



be  the  case,  also  to  fit  itself  to  defend  other  na- 
tions that  are  weak  and  wronged,  when  in  help- 
less misery  they  are  ground  beneath  the  feet  of 
the  successful  militarism  which  serves  evil.  At 
present,  in  this  world,  and  for  the  immediate  fu- 
ture, it  is  certain  that  the  only  way  successfully 
to  oppose  the  might  which  is  the  servant  of 
wrong  is  by  means  of  the  might  which  is  the 
servant  of  right. 

Nothing  is  gained  by  debate  on  non-debatable 
subjects.  No  intelligent  man  desires  war.  But 
neither  can  any  intelligent  man  who  is  willing 
to  think  fail  to  realize  that  we  live  in  a  great 
and  free  country  only  because  our  forefathers 
were  willing  to  wage  war  rather  than  accept  the 
peace  that  spells  destruction.  No  nation  can  per- 
manently retain  any  "social  values"  worth  hav- 
ing unless  it  'develops  the  warlike  strength  neces- 
sary for  its  own  defence. 



THE  professional  pacifists  who  have  so  ac- 
tively worked  for  the  dishonor  of  the 
American  name  and  the  detriment  of  the  Ameri- 
can nation  (and  who  incidentally  have  shown 
themselves  the  basest  allies  and  tools  of  triumph- 
ant wrong)  would  do  well  to  bear  in  view  the 
elementary  fact  that  the  only  possible  way  by 
which  to  enable  us  to  live  at  peace  with  other 
nations  is  to  develop  our  strength  in  order  that 
we  may  defend  our  own  rights.  Above  all,  let 
them  realize  that  a  democracy  more  than  any 
other  human  government  needs  preparation  in 
advance  if  peace  is  to  be  safeguarded  against 
war.  So  far  as  self-defence  is  concerned,  uni- 
versal military  training  and,  in  the  event  of  need, 
universal  military  service,  represent  the  highest 
expression  of  the  democratic  ideal  in  govern- 

Jefferson  had  been  an  apostle  of  peace  who 
had  declared  "that  peace  was  his  passion,"  and 
his  refusal  to  lead  the  nation  in  preparedness 



bore  bitter  fruit  in  the  war  of  1812.  But  at 
least  he  learned  aright  the  lesson  that  was 
taught.  In  1813  he  wrote  to  Monroe: 

"We  must  train  and  classify  the  whole  of  our 
male  citizens  and  make  military  instruction  a 
regular  part  of  collegiate  education.  We  can 
never  be  safe  till  this  is  done." 

And  in  1814  he  went  still  further: 

"I  think  the  truth  must  now  be  obvious  that- 
we  cannot  be  defended  but  by  making  every  citi- 
zen a  soldier,  and  that  in  doing  this  all  must  be 
marshaled,  classed  by  their  ages,  and  every  serv- 
ice ascribed  to  its  competent  class." 

President  Monroe  in  his  message  to  Congress 
of  December  3rd,  1822,  just  ninety-three  years 
ago,  used  expressions  which  without  changing 
a  word  can  be  applied  to  the  far  more  urgent 
needs  of  to-day.  He  said: 

"The  history  of  the  late  wars  in  Europe  fur- 
nishes a  complete  demonstration  that  no  sys- 
tem of  conduct  however  correct  in  principle,  can 
protect  neutral  powers  from  injury  from  any 
party;  that  a  defenceless  position  and  distin- 
guished love  of  peace  are  the  surest  invitations 
to  war,  and  that  there  is  no  way  to  avoid  it 
other  than  by  being  always  prepared  and  willing 
for  just  cause  to  meet  it.  If  there  be  a  people 
on  earth  whose  more  especial  duty  it  is  to  be  at 
all  times  prepared  to  defend  the  rights  with 



which  they  are  blessed,  and  to  surpass  all  others 
in  sustaining  the  necessary  burthens,  and  in  sub- 
mitting to  sacrifices  to  make  such  preparations, 
it  is  undoubtedly  the  people  of  these  states." 

The  question  of  more  real  consequence  to  this 
nation  than  any  other  at  this  moment  is  the  ques- 
tion of  preparedness.  The  first  step  must  be 
preparedness  against  war.  Of  course  there  can 
be  no  efficient  military  preparedness  against  war 
without  preparedness  for  social  and  industrial 
efficiency  in  peace.  Germany,  which  is  the  great 
model  for  all  other  nations  in  matters  of  effi- 
ciency, has  shown  this,  and  if  this  democracy 
is  to  endure,  it  must  emulate  German  efficiency 
— adding  thereto  the  spirit  of  democratic  jus- 
tice and  of  international  fair  play.  Moreover, 
and  finally,  there  can  be  no  preparedness  in 
things  material,  whether  of  peace  or  war,  with- 
out also  preparedness  in  things  mental  and  spirit- 
ual. There  must  be  preparedness  of  the  soul 
and  the  mind  in  order  to  make  full  preparedness 
of  the  body,  although  it  is  no'  less  true  that  the 
mere  fact  of  preparing  the  body  also  prepares 
the  soul  and  the  mind.  There  is  the  constant 
action  and  reaction  of  one  kind  of  preparation 
upon  another  in  nations  as  in  individuals. 

But  there  are  certain  elementary  facts  to  be 
grasped  by  this  people  before  we  can  have  any 
policy  at  all.  The  first  fact  is  a  thorough  un- 



derstanding  of  that  hoary  falsehood  which  de- 
clares that  it  takes  two  to  make  a  quarrel.  It 
did  not  take  two  nations  to  make  the  quarrel 
that  resulted  in  Germany  trampling  Belgium  into 
the  mire.  It  is  no  more  true  that  it  takes  two 
to  make  a  quarrel  in  international  matters  than 
it  is  to  make  the  same  assertion  about  a  high- 
wayman who  holds  up  a  passer-by  or  a  black- 
hander  who  kidnaps  a  child.  The  people  who 
do  not  make  quarrels,  who  are  not  offensive,  who 
give  no  cause  for  anger,  are  those  who  ordinarily 
furnish  the  victims  of  highwaymen,  black-hand- 
ers  and  white-slavers.  Criminals  always  attack 
the  helpless  if  possible.  In  exactly  similar  fash- 
ion aggressive  and  militarist  nations  attack  weak 
nations  where  it  is  possible.  Weakness  always 
invites  attack.  Preparedness  usually,  but  not 
always,  averts  it. 

The  next  fact  to  remember  is  that  it  is  of  no 
use  talking  about  reform  and  social  justice  and 
equality  of  industrial  opportunity  inside  of  a  na- 
tion, unless  that  nation  can  protect  itself  from 
outside  attack.  It  is  not  worth  while  bothering 
about  any  social  or  industrial  problem  in  the 
United  States  unless  the  United  States  is  willing 
to  train  itself,  to  fit  itself,  so  that  it  can  be  sure 
that  its  own  people  will  have  the  say-so  in  the  set- 
tlement of  these  problems,  and  not  some  nation 
of  alien  invaders  and  oppressors.  Thanks  to 



the  weakness  we  have  shown  for  five  years,  and 
to  the  fact  that  for  a  year  and  a  half  we  have 
shown  the  "neutrality"  of  the  Levite  who  passed 
by  on  the  other  side  when  he  saw  on  the  ground 
the  man  who  had  been  wounded  by  robbers  near 
Jericho  (and  at  the  least  the  Levite  did  not  boast 
of  his  "neutrality"),  the  United  States  has  not 
a  friend  in  the  world. 

Again,  the  United  States  should  make  up  its 
mind  just  what  its  policy  is  to  be.  Foolish  people 
say  that  the  Monroe  Doctrine  is  outworn,  with- 
out taking  the  trouble  to  understand  what  the 
Monroe  Doctrine  is.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  to 
abandon  the  Monroe  Doctrine  would  be  to  invite 
overwhelming  disaster.  In  its  essence  the  Mon- 
roe Doctrine  amounts  to  saying  that  we  shall  not 
permit  the  American  lands  around  us  to  be  made 
footholds  for  foreign  military  powers  who  would 
in  all  probability  create  out  of  them  points  of 
armed  aggression  against  us.  We  must  there- 
fore make  up  our  mind  that  we  will  police  and 
defend  the  Panama  Canal  and  its  approaches, 
preserve  order  and  safeguard  civilization  in  the 
territories  adjacent  to  the  Caribbean  Sea,  and 
see  that  none  of  these  territories,  great  or  small, 
are  seized  by  any  military  empire  of  the  Old 
World  which  can  use  them  to  our  disadvantage. 
A  prime  duty,  of  course,  is  to  secure  livable  con- 
ditions in  Mexico.  To  permit  such  conditions  as 



have  obtained  in  Mexico  for  the  past  five  years 
is  to  put  a  premium  upon  European  interference; 
for  where  we  shirk  our  duty  to  ourselves,  to 
honest  and  law-abiding  Mexicans,  and  to  all  Eu- 
ropean foreigners  within  Mexico,  we  cannot  ex- 
pect permanently  to  escape  the  consequences. 

The  events  of  the  past  year  have  shown  that 
all  talk  of  preventing  aggression  from  unscrupu- 
lous militaristic  nations  by  arbitration  treaties, 
Hague  Conventions,  peace  agreements  and  the 
like  at  present  represents  nothing  but  empty 
declamation.  No  person  outside  of  an  imbecile 
asylum  should  be  expected  to  take  such  talk  seri- 
ously at  the  present  time.  Leagues  to  Enforce 
Peace  and  the  like  may  come  in  the  future;  I 
hope  they  ultimately  will;  but  not  until  nations 
like  our  own  are  not  too  proud  to  fight,  and  are 
too  proud  not  to  live  up  to  their  agreements.  It 
is  at  best  an  evidence  of  silliness  and  at  worst 
an  evidence  of  the  meanest  insincerity  to  treat 
the  formation  of  such  leagues  as  possible  until 
as  a  nation  we  do  two  things. 

In  the  first  place,  we  must  make  ready  our 
own  strength.  In  the  next  place,  by  our  action 
in  actually  living  up  to  the  obligations  we  as- 
sumed in  connection  with  the  Hague  Conven- 
tions, we  must  make  it  evident  that  there  would 
be  some  reasonable  hope  of  our  living  up  to  the 
onerous  obligations  that  would  have  to  be  un- 



dertaken  by  any  nation  entering  into  a  League 
to  Enforce  Peace.  The  Hague  Conventions  were 
treaties  entered  into  by  us  with,  among  other  na- 
tions, Belgium  and  Germany.  Under  our  Con- 
stitution such  a  treaty  becomes  part  of  "the  Su- 
preme Law  of  the  Land,"  binding  upon  ourselves 
and  upon  the  other  nations  that  make  it.  For 
this  reason  we  should  never  lightly  enter  into  a 
treaty,  and  should  both  observe  it,  and  demand 
its  observance  by  others  when  made.  The  Hague 
Conventions  were  part  of  the  Supreme  Law  of 
our  Land,  under  the  Constitution.  Therefore 
Germany  violated  the  Supreme  Law  of  our  Land 
when  she  brutally  wronged  Belgium ;  and  we  per- 
mitted it  without  a  word  of  protest. 

Nearly  eighteen  months  have  gone  by  since 
with  the  outbreak  of  this  war  it  became  evident 
to  every  man  willing  to  face  the  facts,  that  mili- 
tary and  naval  problems  and  international  prob- 
lems of  every  kind  were  infinitely  more  serious 
than  we  had  had  reason  to  believe,  that  treaties 
were  absolutely  worthless  to  protect  any  nation 
unless  backed  by  armed  force,  and  that  the  need 
of  preparedness  was  infinitely  more  urgent  than 
any  man  in  this  country  had  up  to  that  time 
believed.  The  belief  that  public  opinion  or  in- 
ternational public  opinion,  unbacked  by  force, 
had  the  slightest  effect  in  restraining  a  powerful 
military  nation  in  any  course  of  action  it  chose 



to  undertake  was  shown  to  be  a  pathetic  fallacy. 
But  any  man  who  still  publicly  adheres  to  and 
defends  that  opinion  at  the  present  time  is  en- 
gaged in  propagating  not  a  pathetic,  but  an  ab- 
solutely mischievous  and  unpatriotic  fallacy.  It 
is  the  simple  and  literal  truth  that  public  opinion 
during  the  last  eighteen  months  has  not  had  the 
very  smallest  effect  in  mitigating  any  atrocities 
or  preventing  any  wrongdoing  by  aggressive  mil- 
itary powers,  save  to  the  exact  degree  that  there 
was  behind  the  public  opinion  actual  strength 
which  would  be  used  if  the  provocation  was  suf- 
ficiently great.  Public  opinion  has  been  abso- 
lutely useless  as  regards  Belgium,  as  regards 
Armenia,  as  regards  Poland.  No  man  can  as- 
sert the  contrary  with  sincerity  if  he  takes  the 
trouble  to  examine  the  facts. 

For  eighteen  months,  with  this  world-cyclone 
before  our  eyes,  we  as  a  nation  have  sat  supine 
without  preparing  in  any  shape  or  way.  It  is 
an  actual  fact  that  there  has  not  been  one  soldier, 
one  rifle,  one  gun,  one  boat,  added  to  the  Ameri- 
can Army  or  Navy  so  far,  because  of  anything 
that  has  occurred  in  this  war,  and  not  the  slight- 
est step  has  yet  been  taken  looking  toward  the 
necessary  preparedness.  Such  national  short- 
sightedness, such  national  folly,  is  almost  incon- 
ceivable. We  have  had  ample  warning  to  or- 
ganize a  scheme  of  defence.  We  have  absolutely 



disregarded  the  warning,  and  the  measures  so 
far  officially  advocated  are  at  best  measures  of 
half -preparedness,  and  as  regards  the  large  as- 
pect of  the  question,  are  not  even  that. 

We  should  consider  our  national  military  pol- 
icy as  a  whole.  We  must  prepare  a  well-thought- 
out  strategic  scheme,  planned  from  the  stand- 
point of  our  lasting  national  interests,  and  stead- 
ily pursued  by  preparation  and  the  study  of  ex- 
perts, through  a  course  of  years.  The  navy  is 
our  first  line  of  defence,  but  it  must  be  remem- 
bered that  it  can  be  used  wisely  for  defence  only 
as  an  offensive  arm.  Parrying  is  never  success- 
ful from  the  standpoint  of  defence.  The  attack 
is  the  proper  method  of  efficient  defence.  For 
some  years  we  have  been  using  the  Navy  inter- 
nationally as  a  bluff  defensive  force,  or  rather 
asserting  that  it  would  be  so  used  and  could 
be  so  used.  Its  real  value  is  as  an  offensive  force 
in  the  interest  of  any  war  undertaken  for  our 
own  defence.  Freedom  of  action  by  the  fleet  is 
the  secret  of  real  naval  power.  This  cannot  be 
attained  until  we  have  at  our  disposal  an  ef- 
fective military  establishment  which  would  en- 
able us  when  threatened  to  repel  any  force  dis- 
embarking on  our  coast.  This  is  fundamental. 
It  is  only  by  creating  a  sufficient  army  that  we 
can  employ  our  fleet  on  its  legitimate  functions. 
The  schemes  of  the  Navy  must  always  be  cor- 



related  with  the  plans  of  the  Army,  and  both  of 
them  with  the  plans  of  the  State  Department, 
which  should  never  under  any  circumstances  un- 
dertake any  scheme  of  foreign  policy  without 
considering  what  our  military  situation  is  and 
may  be  made.  For  reasons  I  give  elsewhere  I 
believe  that  we  should  base  our  military  and 
naval  program  upon  the  retention  and  defence 
of  Alaska,  Hawaii,  the  Panama  Canal  and  all 
its  approaches,  including  all  the  points  of  South 
American  soil  north  of  the  Equator,  and  of 
course,  including  the  defence  of  our  own  coasts 
and  the  islands  of  the  West  Indies.  To  free  the 
Navy  we  need  ample  coast  defences  manned  by 
a  hundred  thousand  men,  and  a  mobile  regular 
army  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  men. 
The  proposed  Administration  program  is  a 
make-believe  program.  It  is  entirely  inade- 
quate to  our  needs.  It  is  a  proposal  not  to  do 
something  effective  immediately,  but  to  do  some- 
thing entirely  ineffective  immediately,  and  to 
trust  that  the  lack  will  be  made  good  in  succeed- 
ing years.  Congress  has  never  been  willing  to 
carry  out  the  plans  advocated  by  the  General 
Board.  Until  1911,  however,  the  differences  be- 
tween what  was  needed  and  what  was  actually 
appropriated  for,  although  real,  was  not  appal- 
lingly great.  At  the  very  time,  however,  when 
the  extraordinary  development  of  navies  abroad 



rendered  it  imperative  that  we  should  enlarge 
our  own  program  and  treat  it  far  more  se- 
riously than  ever  before,  Congress  stopped  en- 
tirely the  proper  upbuilding  of  the  Navy.  At 
present  what  is  needed  is  immediately  to  strain 
every  nerve  of  the  government  so  that  this  year 
we  will  begin  work  on  half-a-dozen  formidable 
fighting  battleships  and  formidable  speedy  armed 
cruisers.  Whether  we  begin  them  in  public  or 
private  yards  is  of  no  earthly  consequence  com- 
pared with  the  vital  importance  of  beginning  on 
these  ships  somewhere  at  once — not  next  sum- 
mer, but  within  thirty  or  sixty  days.  Frederick 
Palmer  has  recently  shown  that  in  the  three 
squadron  actions  of  this  war  the  beaten  side  has 
behaved  with  the  same  skill  and  prowess  shown 
by  the  victors  but  has  been  beaten  purely  be- 
cause of  the  superiority  of  its  opponent  in  the 
speed  of  the  ships  and  in  the  range  and  power 
of  the  guns.  He  has  furthermore  shown  that  in 
these  three  squadron  actions  the  defeated  ships 
were  in  each  case  superior  to  any  of  our  cruisers 
in  speed  and  range  and  power  of  guns.  In  other 
words,  our  cruisers  would  be  helpless  against 
those  of  a  first-rate  power  at  the  present  time. 
Our  people  need  to  remember  that  half- 
preparation  is  no  preparation  at  all.  A  great 
many  well-meaning  people  are  of  the  same  mind 
as  a  philanthropist  who  wrote  me  the  other  day 



to  the  effect  that  he  believed  in  some  prepared- 
ness, but  not  much.  This  is  like  building  a  bridge 
half  way  across  a  stream,  but  not  all  the  way.  I 
regret  to  state  that  this  seems  to  be  the  attitude 
which  our  Government  now  takes  as  a  substitute 
for  its  attitude  of  a  year  ago,  when  its  view  was 
that  preparedness  was  "hysterical,"  immoral  and 
unnecessary.  The  only  proper  attitude  is  that 
there  shall  be  no  preparedness  at  all  that  is  not 
necessary,  but  that  in  so  far  as  there  is  need 
for  preparedness  the  need  shall  be  fully  met. 
Years  ago  I  served  as  a  deputy  sheriff  in  the  cat- 
tle country.  Of  course  I  prepared  in  advance  for 
my  job.  I  carried  what  was  then  the  best  type 
of  revolver,  a  .45  self-cocker.  I  was  instructed 
never  to  use  it  unless  it  was  absolutely  necessary 
to  do  so,  and  I  obeyed  the  instructions.  But  if 
in  the  interest  of  "peace"  it  had  been  proposed 
to  arm  me  only  with  a  .22  revolver,  I  would 
promptly  have  resigned  my  job. 

There  are  two  immediately  vital  needs  to  be 

i.  That  our  navy  shall  at  the  earliest  possible 
moment  be  made  the  second  in  the  world  in  point 
of  size  and  efficiency.  We  do  not  need  to  make 
it  the  first,  because  Great  Britain  is  not  a  mili- 
tary power,  and  our  relations  with  Canada  are 
on  a  basis  of  such  permanent  friendliness  that 
hostile  relations  need  not  be  considered.  But 



the  British  Empire  would,  quite  properly,  be 
"neutral"  if  we  were  engaged  in  war  with  some 
great  European  or  Asiatic  power. 

2.  That  our  regular  army  shall  be  increased 
to  at  least  a  quarter  of  a  million  men,  with  an 
ample  reserve  of  men  who  could  be  at  once  put 
in  the  ranks  in  the  event  of  a  sudden  attack 
upon  us;  and  provision  made  for  many  times 
the  present  number  of  officers;  and  in  admin- 
istration, provision  made  for  a  combination  of 
entire  efficiency  with  rigid  economy  that  will  be- 
gin with  the  abandonment  of  the  many  useless 
army  posts  and  navy  yards. 

Neither  of  these  needs  is  in  any  way  met  by 
the  Administration's  proposals.  I  am  sincerely 
glad  that  the  Administration  has  now  reversed 
the  attitude  taken  in  the  President's  message 
to  Congress  of  December,  1914,  in  which  he  ad- 
vocated keeping  this  nation  unprepared  and  help- 
less to  defend  its  honor  and  vital  interest 
against  foreign  foes.  But  I  no  less  sincerely  re- 
gret that  the  Administration  has  not  thought  out 
the  situation  and  is  not  prepared  to  present  a 
real  and  substantial  plan  for  defence  instead  of  a 
shadow  program.  During  the  last  three  years 
our  navy  has  fallen  off  appallingly  in  relative  po- 
sition among  the  nations.  The  Administration 
now  proposes  a  plan,  to  be  followed  mainly  by  the 
next  Administration,  which,  if  hereafter  lived 



up  to,  would  nominally  replace  the  navy  where  it 
formerly  was  in  ten  years'  time  and  really  not 
until  twenty  years  have  passed — a  plan  which  in 
reality,  therefore,  is  merely  an  adroit  method  of 
avoiding  substantial  action  in  the  present.  This 
will  not  do.  There  should  be  no  policy  of  adroit 
delay  and  make-believe  action.  Our  government 
should  make  provision  this  year  which  will  insure 
the  regaining  of  our  naval  place  at  the  earliest 
possible  moment.  The  work  should  begin  on  a 
large  scale  at  once.  This  is  of  the  first  impor- 

But  it  is  also  vital  to  bring  the  army  abreast  of 
national  needs.  The  proposed  plan  to  create  a 
rival  national  guard  of  half -trained  or  quarter- 
trained  volunteers — for  that  is  what  the  absurdly 
named  "continental  army"  would  amount  to — if 
tried  will  prove  very  expensive,  very  detrimental 
to  the  existing  national  guard,  and  entirely  use- 
less from  the  standpoint  of  meeting  the  real  needs 
of  the  country.  It  is  thoroughly  undemocratic, 
for  it  appeals  to  the  "patriotism"  of  the  employer 
to  let  his  employees  be  trained  to  do  his  fighting ! 
It  would  put  a  business  premium  on  the  unpatri- 
otic employer  who  would  not  permit  his  men  to 
take  part  in  it.  It  would  be  much  wiser  to  spend 
the  money  in  increasing  the  size  and  efficiency 
of  the  national  guard,  and  establishing  national 
control  over  it — although  this  also  would  be  a 



mere  half-measure,  in  no  way  going  to  the  root 
of  things.  The  Administration  has  declined  to 
ask  for  the  adoption  of  any  of  the  military  sys- 
tems which  have  been  so  strikingly  successful  in 
Switzerland,  Australia,  Argentina,  not  to  speak 
of  Germany.  Instead  they,  congenially,  ask  for 
the  system  which  England  fatuously  tried,  and 
which  in  the  crisis  proved  worthless.  Their  pro- 
posed "continental  army"  has  nothing  in  common 
with  Washington's  continental  army,  which  was 
an  army  of  regulars,  whose  efficiency  was  con- 
ditioned by  service  year  in  and  year  out  in  win- 
ter and  summer.  It  is  nothing  but  the  English 
"territorial"  army,  reliance  upon  which  by  Eng- 
land was  one  of  the  main  factors  in  securing  that 
unpreparedness  for  war  for  which  England  is 
now  paying  so  heavy  a  penalty — for  the  splendid 
courage  and  self-sacrifice  of  the  English  who  are 
now  fighting  so  gallantly  can  not  wholly  undo 
the  effects  of  the  failure  adequately  to  prepare  in 
advance.  The  best  men  among  the  Territorials 
keenly  realized  the  truth  of  the  position  taken  by 
that  high-minded  old  hero,  Lord  Roberts,  and  in 
1913  memorialized  the  English  government  in  fa- 
vor of  a  system  of  universal  military  service  as 
the  only  adequate  method  to  secure  effective 
home  defence.  But  the  political  leaders  of  Eng- 
land insisted  upon  blindly  following  the  easy  path 
to  disaster,  the  path  down  which,  in  imitation 



of  these  blind  leaders,  our  own  American  politi- 
cians now  contentedly  amble. 

The  proposed  increase  in  the  size  of  the  regu- 
lar army  as  outlined  by  the  Administration  is 
utterly  inadequate  to  serve  any  real  purpose.  It 
is  one  of  those  half-measures  which  are  of  serv- 
ice, if  at  all,  only  from  the  political  standpoint. 
Either  we  need  to  prepare  or  we  do  not.  If  we 
do,  then  we  should  prepare  adequately.  I  should 
not  regard  as  wise  a  proposal  for  doing  away 
with  the  New  York  Fire  Department — the  wis- 
dom of  such  a  proposal  being  about  on  a  par  with 
the  wisdom  of  the  attitude  of  Messrs.  Bryan, 
Ford,  Jordan,  and  the  rest  of  the  professional 
pacifists,  as  regards  what  they  are  pleased  to 
call  "militarism."  Yet  it  would  not  be  mate- 
rially less  wise  than  a  proposal  to  compromise, 
by,  on  the  one  hand,  having  fire  engines, 
but,  on  the  other  hand,  not  fitting  them  to  throw 
a  stream  of  water  higher  than  the  second  story. 
The  military  plans  of  the  Administration  are  on 
a  level  with  plans  for  the  New  York  Fire  Depart- 
ment which  should  provide  only  for  second-story 
hose;  they  go  on  the  theory  that  it  is  desirable 
to  try  to  put  out  a  fire  a  little,  but  not  too  much. 
Now,  it  is  always  wise  either  to  let  a  fire  alone  or 
to  deal  with  it. thoroughly. 

The  unwisdom  of  being  content  with  a  sham 
in  this  case  is  shown  by  the  opposition  of  the  pro- 


fessional  pacifists  and  peace-at-any-price  leaders 
even  to  the  shkdow-plan  of  the  Administration. 
They  have  been  busily  engaged  in  opposing  it  on 
the  ground  that  it  is  "rushing  into  militarism," 
and  that  a  standing  army  is  an  "instrument  for 
aggression."  Of  course  in  reality  the  trouble 
with  the  Administration's  plan  is  that  the  stand- 
ing army  it  would  provide  would  not  even  be  an 
instrument  for  defence.  As  for  "rushing  into 
militarism,"  we  are  not  even  trickling  in  that  di- 
rection. The  proposal  advocated  by  the  real  be- 
lievers in  national  defence  (as  distinguished 
from  those  who  support  the  Administration's 
plan)  is  to  make  the  regular  army,  relatively  to 
the  United  States,  as  large  as  the  New  York  po- 
lice force  is  relatively  to  the  city  of  New  York; 
for  a  quarter  of  a  million  men  bears  to  the  nation 
just  about  the  proportion  that  the  present  police 
force  does  to  New  York  City.  Surely  even  hys- 
teria cannot  see  "militarism"  and  "aggression" 
in  such  a  proposal. 

A  few  of  the  professional  pacifists  now  support 
the  Government's  plan  for  a  half  preparation,  for 
pretending  to  meet  needs  without  meeting  them. 
But  the  extreme  pacifists  can  always  be  trusted  to 
insist  on  the  nadir  of  folly.  They  do  not  wish 
to  see  this  nation  even  pretend  to  act  with  self- 
respect.  It  is  natural  that  they  should  wage  a 
sham  battle  with  a  sham,  for  all  their  utterances 



are  those  of  men  who  dwell  in  a  world  of  windy 
make-believe.  Their  argument  is  that  we  should 
have  no  preparedness  whatever,  that  we  should 
not  prepare  for  defence,  nor  bear  arms,  nor  be 
able  to  use  force,  and  that  this  nation  must  "in- 
fluence others  by  example  rather  than  by  exciting 
fear,"  and  must  secure  its  safety  "not  by  carry- 
ing arms,  but  by  an  upright,  honorable  course." 
Of  course  such  a  position  can  be  honestly  held 
by  a  man  of  intelligence  only  if  he  also  demands 
the  abolition  of  the  police  force  throughout  the 
United  States  and  announces  that  he  will  not  re- 
sent the  action  of  an  offender  who  slaps  the  face 
of  his  wife  or  outrages  his  daughter.  However, 
to  argue  with  these  gentlemen  is  to  waste  time, 
for  there  can  be  no  greater  waste  of  time  than 
to  debate  about  non-debatable  things. 

It  seems  literally  incredible  that  any  human  be- 
ing can  take  the  position  now  taken  by  the  pro- 
fessional pacifists,  with  the  fates  of  Belgium  and 
China  before  their  eyes  at  this  very  moment. 
China  has  sought  to  influence  others  "by  exam- 
ple" instead  of  by  "exciting  fear,"  and  half  her 
territory  is  in  the  possession  of  aliens.  Belgium 
thought  to  secure  her  safety  "by  an  upright  hon- 
orable course"  instead  of  by  "carrying  arms," 
and  in  consequence  she  has  been  trampled  into 
dust.  Probably  there  is  not  in  all  Belgium  a  man, 
a  woman,  or  a  child  over  six  years  old,  who  would 



consider  the  arguments  of  these  pacifists  against 
preparedness  as  other  than  peculiarly  heartless 
jests.  In  China,  however,  among  elderly  man- 
darins of  unusually  conservative  type,  it  is  pos- 
sible that  they  would  be  taken  seriously. 

I  very  earnestly  hope  that  the  ordinary  citi- 
zens of  this  country,  since  their  official  leaders 
refuse  to  lead  them,  will  themselves  wake  to 
their  own  needs  and  lead  the  should-be  leaders. 
Let  us  at  once  take  action  to  make  us  the  second 
naval  power  in  the  world.  Let  us  take  the  action 
this  year,  not  the  year  after  next.  Do  it  now. 
The  navy  is  our  first  line  of  defence.  It  is  from 
the  national  standpoint  literally  criminal  to  neg- 
lect it. 

As  regards  the  army,  first  and  foremost  let  us 
know  the  advice  of  the  experts.  Then  provide 
a  regular  army  of  a  quarter  of  a  million  men. 
Relatively  to  the  nation  this  army  would  be  no 
larger  than  the  New  York  police  force  is  rela- 
tively to  the  city  of  New  York.  On  paper  our 
present  strength  is  100,000,  and  we  have  in  the 
United  States  a  mobile  army  of  only  30,000  men. 
We  need  10,000  more  men  adequately  to  man  our 
coast  defences  at  home,  and  5,000  additional  ade- 
quately to  man  those  abroad.  We  need  20,000 
additional  men  to  provide  an  adequate  mobile 
army  for  meeting  a  raid  on  our  overseas  pos- 
sessions. At  home  we  should  have  a  mobile  army 



of  150,000  men,  in  order  to  guarantee  us  against 
having  New  York  or  San  Francisco  at  once 
seized  by  any  big  military  nation  which  went  to 
war  with  us.  A  quarter  of  a  million  in  the  regu- 
lar army  is  the  minimum  that  will  insure  the  na- 
tion's safety  from  sudden  attack. 

In  addition  we  must  provide  backing  for  this 
regular  army.  Provide  a  real  reserve  of  enlisted 
men.  Provide  as  many  officers,  active  and  re- 
serve taken  together,  as  will  enable  us  to  officer 
a  million  and  a  half  of  men  in  the  event  of  war. 
Meanwhile  do  everything  possible  for  the  na- 
tional guard,  providing  the  necessary  Federal 
control  to  make  it  really  efficient ;  and  provide  for 
many  training  camps  like  that  at  Plattsburg. 
Drop  the  undemocratic  continental  volunteer 
army  which  discriminates  between  employer  and 
employed,  which  would  help  the  unpatriotic  em- 
ployer who  refused  to 'do  as  his  patriotic  rival 
was  glad  to  do,  and  which  would  result  merely 
in  the  establishment  of  an  inefficient  rival  to  the 
national  guard.  Provide  an  adequate  reserve  of 
war  material — this  is  of  prime  importance. 

We  should  at  once  begin  governmental  encour- 
agement and  control  of  our  munition  plants.  To 
make  war  on  them  is  to  make  war  on  the  United 
States;  and  those  doing  so  should  be  treated  ac- 
cordingly and  all  who  encourage  them  should  be 
treated  accordingly.  The  existing  plants  should 



be  encouraged  in  every  legitimate  way,  and  provi- 
sion made  to  encourage  their  continuance  after 
the  war.  But  it  is  most  unfortunate  that  they  are 
situated  so  near  the  seacoast.  The  establishment 
of  munition  plants  further  inland  should  be  pro- 
vided for,  without  delay.  Pittsburg  is  as  far  east 
as  any  plant  should  by  rights  be  placed.  This 
whole  matter  of  providing  and  regulating  the 
output  of  munitions  is  one  in  which  Germany 
should  especially  stand  as  our  model.  Let  us 
study  carefully  what  she  has  done,  and  then  de- 
velop and  adapt  to  our  own  needs  the  schemes 
which  she  has  found  successful,  supplementing 
them  with  whatever  additional  measures  our  own 
experience  may  indicate  as  advisable.  There 
should  be  a  great  plant  in  the  southern  iron  fields 
— the  iron  fields  whose  development  was  rendered 
possible  by  the  wise  action  of  the  United  States 
Government  in  permitting  the  United  States  Steel 
Corporation  to  secure  the  Tennessee  Coal  and 
Iron  Company,  action  which  has  since  been 
passed  on  and  approved  by  the  Federal  courts. 

Steadily  remember  that  ample  material  is  use- 
less unless  we  prepare  in  advance  the  highly 
trained  personnel  to  handle  it.  This  applies  all 
the  way  through  from  battle  cruisers  and  sub- 
marines to  coast  guns  and  field  artillery  and  aero- 
planes. We  need  the  best  types  of  sea-going  sub- 
marines. We  need  an  immense  development  of 



the  Aviation  Corps.  I  wonder  how  many  of  our 
people  understand  that  at  this  time  the  total 
strength  of  the  officers  and  men  in  the  French 
Aviation  Corps  surpasses  in  number  the  total 
strength  of  the  officers  and  enlisted  men  in  the 
United  States  Army?  As  regards  the  army — 
strict  economy  should  at  once  be  introduced,  and, 
as  a  preliminary,  all  useless  army  posts  should 
be  abandoned — just  as  economy  in  the  navy 
should  imply  the  abandonment  of  useless  navy 
yards.  A  board  of  first-class  army  officers,  and 
another  of  first-class  navy  officers,  should  be 
chosen  and  required  to  report,  on  purely  military 
grounds,  which  posts  should  be  kept  and  which 
abandoned;  and  their  reports  should  be  followed 
implicitly.  However,  we  ought  to  have  training 
posts  for  a  mass  of  officers  ready  to  lead  our 
citizen  armies  in  time  of  need;  and  these  army 
posts  and  navy  yards  could  be  very  advanta- 
geously used  for  this  purpose. 

These  are  the  needs  that  can  be  and  ought  to  be 
immediately  met.  But  I  believe  with  all  my  heart 
that  we  must  adopt  a  system  of  universal  service 
on  the  Swiss  or  Australian  models,  adapted  of 
course  to  our  own  needs.  This  is  the  method  of 
true  democracy.  In  a  free  republic  rights  should 
only  be  allowed  as  corollaries  to  duties.  No  man 
has  a  right  to  vote  who  shirks  his  obligations  to 
the  state  whether  in  peace  or  war.  The  full  citi- 



zen  must  do  a  citizen's  full  duty ;  and  he  can  only 
do  his  full  duty  if  he  fits  himself  to  fight  for  the 
common  good  of  all  citizens  in  the  hour  of  deadly 
peril  of  the  nation's  life.  Manhood  suffrage 
should  mean  manhood  service  in  war  just  as 
much  as  in  peace.  People  speak  in  praise  of  vol- 
unteers. I  also  praise  the  volunteer  who  volun- 
teers to  fight.  But  I  do  not  praise  the  volunteer 
who  volunteers  to  have  somebody  else  fight  in 
his  place.  Universal  service  is  the  only  way  by 
which  we  can  secure  real  democracy,  real  fair- 
ness and  justice.  Every  able-bodied  youth  in 
the  land  should  be  proud  to,  and  should  be  re- 
quired to,  prepare  himself  thoroughly  to  protect 
the  nation  from  armed  aggression. 

The  question  of  expense  is  of  wholly  secondary 
importance  in  a  matter  which  may  well  be  of 
life  or  death  significance  to  the  nation.  Five 
years  hence  it  may  be  altogether  too  late  to  spend 
any  money!  We  will  do  well  at  this  time  to 
adopt,  with  a  slight  modification,  the  motto  popu- 
lar among  our  forefathers  a  century  ago:  Mil- 
lions for  defence  but  not  a  cent  for  either  tribute 
or  aggression. 

Fortunately  we  can,  if  we  have  sufficient  good 
sense  and  foresight,  not  only  successfully  safe- 
guard ourselves  against  attack  from  without, 
but  can,  and  ought  to,  do  it  in  such  a  manner  as 
immeasurably  to  increase  our  moral  and  material 



efficiency  in  our  everyday  lives.  Proper  prepa- 
ration for  self-defence  will  be  of  immense  inci- 
dental help  in  solving  our  spiritual  and  indus- 
trial problems. 

In  a  country  like  ours  a  professional  army  will 
always  be  costly,  for  as  regards  such  an  army 
the  Government  has  to  go  into  the  labor  market 
for  its  soldiers,  and  compete  against  industrial- 
ism. Universal  service,  as  an  obligation  on  every 
citizen,  is  the  only  way  by  which  to  secure  an  eco- 
nomical and  inexpensive  army. 

A  democracy  fit  to  be  called  such  must  do  its 
own  fighting,  and  therefore  must  make  ready  in 
advance.  The  poltroon  and  the  professional 
pacifist  are  out  of  place  in  a  democracy.  The 
man  fit  for  self-government  must  be  fit  to  fight 
for  self-government.  Universal  service  means 
preparedness  not  for  war  but  primarily  against 
war.  Such  essentially  democratic  preparedness 
would  render  it  less  likely  that  war  will  come 
and  certain  that  if  it  does  come  we  shall  avoid 
disgrace  and  disaster.  Such  preparedness  would 
mean  much  for  the  soul  of  this  nation.  The  effi- 
ciency of  the  average  man  in  civil  life  would  be 
thereby  greatly  increased.  He  would  be  trained 
to  realize  that  he  is  a  partner  in  this  giant  de- 
mocracy, and  has  duties  to  the  other  partners. 
He  would  first  learn  how  to  obey  and  then  how 
to  command.  He  would  acquire  habits  of  order, 



of  cleanliness,  of  self-control,  of  self-restraint,  of 
respect  for  himself  and  for  others.  The  whole 
system  would  be  planned  with  especial  regard  to 
the  conditions  and  needs  of  the  farmer  and  the, 
workingman.  The  average  citizen  would  become 
more  efficient  in  his  work  and  a  better  man  in 
his  relations  to  his  neighbors.  We  would  se- 
cure far  greater  social  solidarity  and  mutual  un- 
derstanding and  genuine  efficiency  among  our 
citizens  in  time  of  peace.  In  time  of  war  we 
would  put  back  of  the  navy  and  of  the  regular 
army  the  weight  of  the  whole  nation.  With  the 
navy  and  the  very  small  regular  army  asked  for, 
only  a  quarter  of  a  million  men,  we  would  be 
able  to  meet  sudden  emergencies ;  and  behind  the 
army  and  navy  would  stand  a  people  so  trained 
and  so  fitted  that  if  the  demand  was  not  merely 
to  meet  a  sudden  emergency  but  a  great  and  long- 
continued  strain,  our  citizens  would  be  able  to 
furnish  within  a  reasonably  short  time  the  num- 
ber of  men  necessary  to  meet  this  strain. 

Universal  military  service  as  here  indicated 
would  be  the  best  preliminary  for  fitting  this  na- 
tion for  the  kind  of  efficient  industrialism,  and 
efficiency  of  spiritual  and  moral  patriotism  from 
the  standpoint  of  the  commonwealth  as  a  whole, 
which  would  make  us  able  to  parallel  the  extraor- 
dinary German  achievements  without  loss  of  our 
own  democratic  spirit.  It  is  our  great  duty  to 



combine  preparedness  for  peace,  efficiency  in  se- 
curing both  industrial  success  and  industrial  jus- 
tice, with  preparedness  against  war.  We  need 
not  in  servile  fashion  follow  exactly  the  example 
set  abroad,  but  if  we  are  wise  we  will  profit  by 
what  has  been  achieved,  notably  among  great 
industrial  nations  like  Germany,  in  these  matters. 
Switzerland  has  shown  that  the  most  absolute 
democracy,  without  one  touch  of  militarism,  can 
develop  high  industrial  efficiency  in  time  of  peace 
and  can  adequately  prepare  against  war  while 
at  the  same  time  securing  a  marked  advance 
among  the  citizens  in  their  relations  with  one  an- 
other, as  regards  the  qualities  of  mutual  respect, 
of  order,  of  regard  for  the  law  and  for  the  rights 
of  the  weak.  We  are  the  largest  republic  of  the 
world.  Let  us  be  ashamed  to  fall  behind  France, 
a  great  republic,  and  Switzerland,  a  small  but 
gallant  republic,  and  Australia,  the  great  democ- 
racy of  the  South  Seas,  and  Argentina  and  Chile 
in  our  own  hemisphere,  in  such  matters  as  pa- 
triotism, as  national  efficiency,  as  the  subordina- 
tion of  the  individual  to  the  socialized  welfare  of 
the  people  as  a  whole. 

The  Administration,  at  this  most  critical 
period  of  our  history,  when  our  people  so  need 
the  light,  has  refused  to  let  them  have  the  light, 
by  forbidding  the  professional  officers  to  discuss 
the  problems  which  they  are  especially  fitted  to 



discuss.  It  is  treachery  to  the  republic  for  states- 
men— and  for  professional  officers — to  propose 
and  to  acquiesce  in  unsound  half-measures  which 
necessitate  large  continuing  expenditures,  but 
which  do  not  provide  for  adequate  national  de- 

I  am  told  that  "women  oppose  war,"  and  there- 
fore that,  with  illogical  folly,  they  oppose  pre- 
paredness against  war.  I  appeal,  as  a  lover  of 
peace,  in  the  name  of  my  wife  and  myself — the 
father  and  mother  of  sons  who  would  have  to 
go  to  war,  and  of  daughters  who  in  war  would 
work  and  suffer  as  much  as  the  sons — to  every 
good  man  and  good  woman  in  this  country.  We 
dread  war;  but  we  follow  Washington  and  Lin- 
coln in  dreading  some  things  worse  than  war. 
Therefore  we  desire  to  prepare  against  war.  I 
wish  every  man  and  woman  in  the  land  would 
read  a  piece  in  the  November  Woman's  Home 
Companion  which  my  wife  recently  showed  me. 
The  writer  does  not  give  her  name.  She  says 
she  is  "a  plain  old  woman  of  seventy-three"  who 
lives  "in  a  little  country  town  in  Kansas."  She 
tells  of  her  husband,  John,  a  skilled  mechanic, 
who  went  to  war  in  '61,  who  later  grew  blind 
from  injuries  received  in  the  war,  and  whose  life 
was  a  hard,  hard  struggle.  She  says  that  she 
would  like  to  see  everything  done  to  keep  war 
away  from  us;  that  therefore  she  would  like  to 



see  "forts,  submarines,  a  fine  strong  fleet,  and 
then  every  boy  raised  to  be  a  soldier,"  to  see 
"every  man  in  some  farm,  or  factory,  or  business 
in  peace  times,"  but  trained  so  as  to  be  always 
ready  to  defend  the  nation  if  the  call  comes;  and 
she  "would  include  the  girls,  too" — which  is  quite 
right,  for  universal  service  does  not  mean  that 
every  man  must  fight,  but  that  every  man  or 
woman  must  serve  the  country  in  the  position  in 
which  he  or  she  can  render  best  service.  She 
ends  by  saying:  "I  did  raise  my  boy  to  be  a  sol- 
dier. If  a  million  other  mothers,  if  every  mother 
in  the  country  would  do  the  same,  we  would  be 
safe  forever." 

Universal  service  would  be  in  every  way  benefi- 
cial to  the  state  and  would  be  quite  as  beneficial 
from  the  standpoint  of  those  who  consider  the  in- 
terest of  the  state  in  time  of  peace  as  from  the 
standpoint  of  those  who  are  interested  in  the 
welfare  of  the  state  in  time  of  war.  The  nor- 
mal tests  of  military  efficiency  are  the  very  tests 
which  would  test  a  man's  efficiency  for  industry 
and  for  the  ordinary  tasks  of  civil  life.  If  a 
large  percentage  of  men  are  unfit  for  military 
service  it  shows  that  they  are  also  poorly  fit  for 
industrial  work.  A  high  percentage  of  infant 
mortality  does  not  mean  the  weeding  out  of  the 
unfit ;  it  means  the  existence  of  conditions  which 
greatly  impair  the  vitality  of  even  those  who 



survive.  Moreover,  the  moral  effect  is  at  least 
as  great  as  the  physical. 

The  fundamental  evil  in  this  country  is  the 
lack  of  sufficiently  general  appreciation  of  the 
responsibility  of  citizenship.  Unfair  business 
methods,  the  misused  power  of  capital,  the  unjus- 
tified activities  of  labor,  pork-barrel  legislation, 
and  graft  among  powerful  politicians  have  all 
been  made  possible  by,  and  have  been  mani- 
festations of,  this  fundamental  evil.  Nothing 
would  do  more  to  remedy  this  evil  than  the  kind 
of  training  in  citizenship,  in  patriotism  and  in 
efficiency,  which  would  come  as  the  result  of  uni- 
versal service  on  the  Swiss  or  Australian  models 
or  rather  on  a  combination  of  the  two  adapted  to 
our  needs.  There  should  be  military  training, 
as  part  of  a  high-school  education  which  should 
include  all-round  training  for  citizenship.  This 
training  should  begin  in  the  schools  in  serious 
fashion  at  about  the  age  of  16.  Then  between 
the  ages  of  18  and  21  there  should  be  six  months 
actual  and  continuous  service  in  the  field  with 
the  colors. 

Such  universal  training  would  give  our  young 
men  the  discipline,  the  sense  of  orderly  liberty 
and  of  loyalty  to  the  interests  of  the  whole  peo- 
ple which  would  tell  in  striking  manner  for  na- 
tional cohesion  and  efficiency.  It  would  tend  to 
enable  us  in  time  of  need  to  mobilize  not  only 



troops  but  workers  and  financial  resources  and 
industry  itself  and  to  coordinate  all  the  factors 
in  national  life.  There  can  be  no  such  mobiliza- 
tion and  coordination  until  we  appreciate  the  ne- 
cessity and  value  of  national  organization;  and 
universal  service  would  be  a  most  powerful  fac- 
tor in  bringing  about  such  general  appreciation. 

As  a  result  of  it,  every  man,  whether  he  car- 
ried a  rifle  or  labored  on  public  works  or  man- 
aged a  business  or  worked  on  a  railway,  would 
have  a  clearer  conception  of  his  obligations  to  the 
State.  It  would  moreover  be  a  potent  method  of 
Americanizing  the  immigrant.  The  events  of 
the  last  eighteen  months  have  shown  us  the  grav- 
ity of  the  danger  to  American  life  of  the  exist- 
ence of  foreign  communities  within  our  borders, 
where  men  are  taught  to  preserve  their  former 
national  identity  instead  of  entering  unreservedly 
into  our  own  national  life.  The  hyphenated 
American  of  any  type  is  a  bad  American  and  an 
enemy  to  this  country:  The  best  possible  anti- 
scorbutic for  this  danger  is  universal  service. 

Such  a  service  would  be  essentially  democratic. 
A  man  has  no  more  right  to  escape  military  serv- 
ice in  time  of  need  than  he  has  to  escape  paying 
his  taxes.  We  do  not  beseech  a  man  to  "volun- 
teer" to  pay  his  taxes,  or  scream  that  it  would 
be  "an  infringement  of  his  liberty"  and  "con- 
trary to  our  traditions"  to  make  him  pay  them. 



We  simply  notify  him  how  much  he  is  to  pay, 
and  when,  and  where.  We  ought  to  deal  just 
as  summarily  with  him  as  regards  the  even  more 
important  matter  of  personal  service  to  the  com- 
monwealth in  time  of  war.  He  is  not  fit  to  live 
in  the  state  unless  when  the  state's  life  is  at  stake 
he  is  willing  and  able  to  serve  it  in  any  way  that 
it  can  best  use  his  abilities,  and,  as  an  incident, 
to  fight  for  it  if  the  state  believes  it  can  best  use 
him  in  such  fashion.  Unless  he  takes  this  posi- 
tion he  is  not  fit  to  be  a  citizen  and  should  be 
deprived  of  the  vote.  Universal  service  is  the 
practical,  democratic  method  of  dealing  with  this 
problem.  Rich  boy  and  poor  boy  would  sleep 
under  the  same  dog  tent  and  march  shoulder  to 
shoulder  in  the  hikes.  Such  service  would  have 
an  immense  democratizing  effect  It  would  im- 
prove the  health  of  the  community,  physically 
and  morally.  It  would  increase  our  national 
power  of  discipline  and  self-control.  It  would 
produce  a  national  state  of  mind  which  would 
enable  us  all  more  clearly  to  realize  the  necessity 
of  social  legislation  in  dealing  with  industrial 
conditions  of  every  kind,  from  unemployment 
among  men  and  the  labor  of  women  and  chil- 
dren to  the  encouragement  of  business  activities. 
What  I  thus  -advocate  is  nothing  new.  I  am 
merely  applying  to  present  day  conditions  the 
advice  given  by  President  George  Washington 



when  he  submitted  a  plan  for  universal  military 
training  in  his  special  message  to  Congress  of 
January  2ist,  1790.  This  plan  advocated  mili- 
tary training  for  all  the  young  men  of  the  coun- 
try, stating  that  "every  man  of  proper  age  and 
ability  of  body  is  firmly  bound  by  the  social  com- 
pact to  perform  personally  his  proportion  of 
military  duty  for  the  defence  of  the  state,"  and 
that  "all  men  of  the  legal  military  age  should  be 
held  responsible  for  different  degrees  of  military 
service,"  and  that  "the  United  States  are  to  pro- 
vide for  arming,  organizing  and  disciplining 
these  men."  This  is  merely  another  name  for 
compulsory  universal  service,  and  the  plan  ac- 
tually provided  that  no  man  of  military  age 
should  vote  unless  he  possessed  a  certificate 
showing  that  he  had  performed  such  service. 
Washington  did  not  regard  professional  pacifists 
as  entitled  to  the  suffrage. 

I  advocate  universal  service  because  it  would 
be  a  potent  means  of  securing  a  quickened  so- 
cial conscience ;  because  it  would  help  us  greatly 
industrially ;  and  because  it  would  put  us  where, 
if  necessary,  we  shall  be  able  to  defend  ourselves 
against  aggression.  This  is  part,  and  a  vital 
part,  of  the  doctrine  of  the  larger  American- 
ism. The  prime  work  for  this  nation  at  this  mo- 
ment is  to  rebuild  its  own  character.  Let  us  find 
our  own  souls ;  let  us  frankly  face  the  world  situ- 



ation  to-day  as  it  affects  ourselves  and  as  it  af- 
fects all  other  countries.  We  must  have  a  defi- 
nite home  policy  and  we  must  have  a  definite  for- 
eign policy.  Let  us,  when  we  enter  into  treaties, 
speak  the  truth,  be  wary  of  making  promises,  and 
honorable  in  fulfilling  them.  Let  us  clearsight- 
edly and  after  mature  deliberation  adopt  a  defi- 
nite policy  without  and  within  our  borders 
and  then  prepare  ourselves  to  carry  it  through. 
Let  us  quit  trying  to  fool  ourselves  by  indulging 
in  cheap  self-assertion  or  even  cheaper  sentimen- 
tality. We  must  have  a  period  of  self -searching. 
We  must  endeavor  to  recover  our  lost  self-re- 
spect. Let  us  show  in  practical  fashion  that  we 
fear  God  and  therefore  deal  justly  with  all  men ; 
and  let  us  also  show  that  we  can  take  our  own 
part;  for  if  we  cannot  take  our  own  part  we 
may  be  absolutely  certain  that  no  one  else  will 
try  to  take  it  for  us.  A  policy  of  unprepared- 
ness  and  of  tame  submission  to  insult  and  ag- 
gression invites  the  kind  of  repeated  insolence  by 
foreign  nations  which  in  the  end  will  drive  our 
people  into  war.  I  advocate  preparedness,  and 
action  (not  merely  words)  on  behalf  of  our  hon- 
or and  interest,  because  such  preparedness  and 
the  readiness  for  such  action  are  the  surest  guar- 
antees of  self-respecting  peace. 

The  larger  Americanism  demands  that  we  in- 
sist that  every  immigrant  who  comes  here  shall 



become  an  American  citizen  and  nothing  else; 
if  he  shows  that  he  still  remains  at  heart  more 
loyal  to  another  land,  let  him  be  promptly  re- 
turned to  that  land;  and  if,  on  the  other  hand, 
he  shows  that  he  is  in  good  faith  and  whole- 
heartedly an  American,  let  him  be  treated  as  on 
a  full  equality  with  the  native  born.  This  means 
that  foreign  born  and  native  born  alike  should 
be  trained  to  absolute  loyalty  to  the  flag,  and 
trained  so  as  to  be  able  effectively  to  defend  the 
flag.  The  larger  Americanism  demands  that  we 
refuse  to  be  sundered  from  one  another  along 
lines  of  class  or  creed  or  section  or  national  ori- 
gin; that  we  judge  each  American  on  his  mer- 
its as  a  man;  that  we  work  for  the  well-being 
of  our  bodily  selves,  but  also  for  the  well-being 
of  our  spiritual  selves;  that  we  consider  safety, 
but  that  we  put  honor  and  duty  ahead  of  safety. 
Only  thus  shall  we  stand  erect  before  the  world, 
high  of  heart,  the  masters  of  our  own  souls,  fit 
to  be  the  fathers  of  a  face  of  freemen  who  shall 
make  and  shall  keep  this  land  all  that  it  seemed 
to  the  prophetic  vision  of  the  mighty  men  who 
founded  it  and  the  mighty  men  who  saved  it. 




THE  present  Administration,  with  its  invet- 
erate fondness  for  Ephraim's  diet,  and  its 
conviction  that  phrase-making  is  an  efficient  sub- 
stitute for  action,  has  plumed  itself  on  the  sen- 
tence, "America  First."  In  practice  it  has  acted 
on  the  theory  of  "America  Last,"  both  at  home 
and  abroad,  both  in  Mexico  and  on  the  high  seas. 
One  of  the  first  and  most  elementary  duties  of 
any  nation  worth  calling  either  civilized  or  self- 
respecting  is  to  protect  its  citizens  from  murder 
and  outrage.  For  five  years  in  Mexico,  and  for 
a  year  and  a  half  on  the  high  seas  in  connection 
with  the  great  European  war,  the  United  States 
Government  has  signally  and  basely  failed  in  the 
performance  of  this  duty.  The  number  of  cases 
in  which  American  men,  women  and  children 
have  been  murdered  on  the  high  seas,  first  by 
German,  and  now  by  Austrian,  submarines,  and 
the  number  of  cases  in  which  American  men 
have  been  murdered  and  American  women  raped 
in  Mexico  and  in  which  American  soldiers  of  the 



United  States,  wearing  the  United  States  uni- 
form, have  been  killed  or  wounded,  and  civilians, 
men,  women  and  children,  killed  or  wounded  on 
American  territory  by  Mexican  soldiers,  taken 
in  the  aggregate  mount  far  up  into  the  hundreds. 
The  murders  of  Americans  that  have  taken  place 
within  the  last  thirty  days  have  been  of  peculiarly 
cold-blooded  character.  They  have  represented 
a  contemptuous  disbelief  in  President  Wilson's 
willingness  to  do  anything  except  write  notes. 
The  deaths  of  these  men  and  women  are  prima- 
rily due  to  President  Wilson's  policy  of  timidity 
and  weakness. 

Not  one  effective  step  has  been  taken  to  put  an 
end  to  these  atrocities.  Moreover,  for  five  years 
the  outrages  on  the  persons  and  property  of  other 
foreigners  in  Mexico  have  been  numerous;  and 
innocent  Mexicans  have  been  butchered  by  scores 
of  thousands;  and  in  many  thousands  of  cases 
Mexican  girls  and  women  have  been  submitted  to 
the  last  extremity  of  infamy  and  outrage  by  the 
brutal  bandits  masquerading  as  military  or  civil 
leaders  of  the  Mexican  people.  Our  government 
has  let  these  people  procure  ammunition  with 
which  to  murder  our  own  soldiers  and  their  own 
peaceful  citizens;  and  the  President  has  actually 
proclaimed  that  they  ought  not  to  be  interfered 
with  in  "spilling  blood." 

During  the  last  year  and  a  half  unoffending, 


peaceful  and  law-abiding  neutral  nations  like  Bel- 
gium, unoffending,  industrious  and  law-abiding 
peoples  like  the  Armenians,  have  been  subjected 
to  wrongs  far  greater  than  any  that  have  been 
committed  since  the  close  of  the  Napoleonic 
Wars;  and  many  of  them  are  such  as  recall  the 
days  of  the  Thirty  Years'  War  in  Europe,  and, 
indeed,  in  the  case  of  the  Armenians,  the  wars  of 
Genghis  Khan  and  Tamerlane  in  Asia.  Yet  this 
government  has  not  raised  its  hand  to  do  any- 
thing to  help  the  people  who  were  wronged  or  to 
antagonize  the  oppressors. 

It  is  not  an  accident,  it  betokens  a  certain  se- 
quence of  cause  and  effect,  that  this  course  of 
national  infamy  on  our  part  began  when  the  last 
Administration  surrendered  to  the  peace-at-any- 
price  people,  and  started  the  negotiation  of  its 
foolish  and  wicked  all-inclusive  arbitration 
treaties.  Individuals  and  nations  who  preach 
the  doctrine  of  milk  and  water  invariably  have  in 
them  a  softness  of  fiber  which  means  that  they 
fear  to  antagonize  those  who  preach  and  prac- 
tise the  doctrine  of  blood  and  iron.  It  is  true  of 
our  people,  as  once  it  was  true  of  the  fellow- 
countrymen  of  Ruskin  when  he  said :  "We  have 
been  passive  where  we  should  not  have  been  pas* 
sive,  for  fear.  The  principle  of  non-intervention, 
as  now  practised  among  us,  is  as  selfish  and  cruel 
as  the  worst  frenzy  of  conquest,  and  differs  from 



it  only  by  being  not  only  malignant,  but  das- 

Professional  pacifists  of  the  stamp  of  Messrs. 
Bryan,  Jordan  and  Ford,  who  in  the  name  of 
peace  preach  doctrines  that  would  entail  not 
merely  utter  infamy  but  utter  disaster  to  their 
own  country,  never  in  practice  venture  to  de- 
nounce concrete  wrong  by  dangerous  wrongdo- 
ers. Professional  pacifists  attack  evil  only  when 
it  can  be  done  with  entire  safety  to  themselves. 
In  the  present  great  crisis,  the  professional  paci- 
fists have  confined  themselves  to  trying  to  pre- 
vent the  United  States  from  protecting  its  honor 
and  interest  and  the  lives  of  its  citizens  abroad; 
and  in  their  loud  denunciations  of  war  they  have 
been  careful  to  use  language  which  would  apply 
equally  to  terribly  wronged  peoples  defending 
all  that  was  dear  to  them  against  cynical  and 
ruthless  oppression,  and  to  the  men  who  were  re- 
sponsible for  this  cynical  and  ruthless  oppres- 
sion. They  dare  not  speak  for  righteousness  in 
the  concrete.  They  dare  not  speak  against  the 
most  infamous  wrong  in  the  concrete.  They 
work  hand  in  glove  with  these  exponents  of  hy- 
phenated Americanism  who  are  seeking  to  turn 
this  country  into  an  ally  and  tool  of  alien  mili- 

These  professional  pacifists,  through  President 
Wilson,  have  forced  this  country  into  a  path  of 



shame  and  dishonor  during  the  past  eighteen 
months.  Thanks  to  President  Wilson,  the  most 
powerful  of  democratic  nations  has  refused  to 
recognize  the  binding  moral  force  of  interna- 
tional public  law.  Our  country  has  shirked  its 
clear  duty.  One  outspoken  and  straightforward 
declaration  by  this  government  against  the  dread- 
ful iniquities  perpetrated  in  Belgium,  Armenia 
and  Servia  would  have  been  worth  to  humanity 
a  thousand  times  as  much  as  all  that  the  profes- 
sional pacifists  have  done  in  the  past  fifty  years. 
The  effect  of  our  inaction  in  Mexico  has  been 
unspeakably  dreadful.  It  has  on  the  whole  been 
surpassed  in  dishonor  by  the  action  of  our  gov- 
ernment in  reference  to  the  great  European  War 
— remembering  in  both  cases  that  supine  inaction 
may  under  many  conditions  prove  the  very  worst 
form  of  action.  Fine  phrases  become  sickening 
when  they  represent  nothing  whatever  but  adroit- 
ness in  phrase-making,  with  no  intention  of  put- 
ting deeds  behind  the  phrases.  For  three  years 
the  United  States  Government  has  been  engaged 
in  sending  notes  and  diplomatic  protests  and  in- 
quiries and  warnings  and  ultimatums  and  pen- 
ultimatums  to  Germany,  to  Mexico,  to  Austria; 
and  not  one  of  these  notes  really  meant  or 
achieved  anything.  These  notes  of  Mr.  Wilson 
resemble  the  "notes"  of  Mr.  Micawber.  The 
Micawber  notes  and  the  Wilson  notes  were  of  dif- 



ferent  kinds.  But  in  value  they  were  plainly  on  a 
par.  The  Micawber  notes  always  went  to  protest ; 
and  Mr.  Micawber  always  fondly  believed  that  one 
could  be  sufficiently  met  by  issuing  another.  Mr. 
Wilson  has  suffered  from  the  same  fond  delusion. 

During  this  period  the  Administration  has 
failed  to  protect  its  naturalized  citizens  in 
their  rights  when  they  have  behaved  them- 
selves; and  yet  when  they  have  not  behaved 
themselves  has  failed  to  insist  on  their  perform- 
ing their  duties  to  the  country  to  which  they  have 
sworn  allegiance.  It  has  permitted  the  represen- 
tatives of  the  German  and  Austrian  peoples  and 
the  German-Americans  and  Austro-Americans 
whose  allegiance  is  to  Germany  or  Austria  and 
not  to  the  United  States  to  carry  on  within  our 
border  a  propaganda  of  which  one  of  the  results 
has  been  the  partial  or  entire  destruction  by  fire 
or  dynamite  of  factory  after  factory.  Summary 
action  of  a  drastic  type  would  have  put  a  stop  to 
this  warfare  waged  against  our  people  in  time  of 
peace;  but  the  Administration  has  not  ventured 
to  act.  There  has  been  a  great  alien  conspiracy 
carried  on  against  America  on  American  soil, 
and  it  has  been  encouraged  by  the  Administra- 
tion's passivity. 

The  Austrian  Ambassador,  Dr.  Dumba,  wrote 
to  the  Austrian  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs: 
"We  can  disorganize  and  hold  up,  if  not  entirely 


prevent,  the  manufacture  of  munitions  in  Beth- 
lehem and  the  Middle  West,  which  is  of  great 
importance,  and  amply  outweighs  the  expendi- 
ture of  money  involved."  Three  months  after 
this  was  written,  the  threat  was  made  good  as 
regards  Bethlehem,  and  the  Germania  Herald  in 
Milwaukee  expressed  joy  over  the  deed,  saying 
on  November  I2th :  "We  rejoice  from  the  depths 
of  our  heart  over  the  destruction  of  these  mur- 
derous machines."  Ten  days  later  a  so-called 
"German-American"  mass  meeting  took  place  in 
Milwaukee,  and  the  same  paper  next  day  re- 
marked with  exultation:  "Germany  last  night 
spoke  to  her  children  on  a  foreign  shore  loudly 
and  distinctly."  So  she  did.  The  president  of 
the  meeting  said  that  their  purpose  was  "to 
spread  German  ideals"  throughout  the  country 
(we  have  seen  above  how  they  were  spread,  with 
the  bomb  and  the  torch)  and  that  he  and  his  fel- 
lows "considered  the  hyphen  an  honor."  The 
next  speaker  was  quite  as  frank,  saying:  "We 
are  all  German  brothers  together,  no  matter  in 
what  country  wre  may  live."  The  men  who  make 
and  applaud  such  utterances  are  the  enemies  of 
this  country.  Their  insolence  is  rendered  pos- 
sible because  this  Administration  is  too  afraid  of 
the  political  consequences  to  dare  to  uphold  the 
honor  of  the  American  flag  or  protect  the  lives 
of  American  citizens. 



Before  recurring  to  the  dreadful  dereliction 
of  duty  to  our  own  citizens  I  wish  to  speak  an- 
other word  as  to  the  failure  on  our  part  to  per- 
form our  duty  toward  neutral  nations.  On  Au- 
gust 23rd,  1915,  the  New  York  World,  recog- 
nized by  common  consent  as  President  Wilson's 
special  organ,  published  in  detail  certain  secret 
papers  obtained  from  the  German  Embassy  as 
to  the  negotiations  between  the  Embassy  and 
President  Wilson  and  as  to  the  steps  taken  by 
the  German  representatives  to  engineer  a  pro- 
German  campaign  in  the  United  States.  I  would 
not  pay  any  heed  to  these  statements  if  they  had 
been  from  an  anti-Administration  paper;  but 
they  come,  as  I  say,  from  the  special  organ  of 
the  Administration.  Among  other  things  this 
correspondence  shows  that  an  individual  desig- 
nated by  the  initials  M.  P.,  purporting  to  convey 
a  special  message  from  the  President  to  the 
German  Embassy,  reported: 

"i.  The  note  to  England  will  go  in  any  event, 
whether  Germany  answers  satisfactorily  or  not 
[the  question  of  attacks  by  German  submarines]. 

"2.  Should  it  be  possible  to  settle  satisfactorily 
the  Lusitania  case,  the  President  will  bind  him- 
self to  carry  the  protest  against  England  through 
to  the  uttermost. 

"3.  The  continuance  of  the  difference  with 
Germany  over  the  Lusitcmia  case  is  'embarrass- 



ing'  for  the  President  in  carrying  out  the  protest 
against  England. 

"4.  The  President  intimated  his  willingness  to 
discuss  the  note  to  Germany  [the  note  of  July 
2 ist  which  remains  unanswered]  with  M.  P., 
and  eventually  so  to  influence  it  that  there  will 
be  an  agreement  for  its  reception  and  also  to  be 
ready  to  influence  the  press  'through  a  wink.' 

"The  President  also  openly  declared  that  he 
could  hardly  hope  for  a  positive  statement  that 
the  submarine  warfare  would  be  discontinued." 

Furthermore,  the  report  was  that  the  Presi- 
dent, through  M.  P.,  "wishes  to  have  the  trend 
of  the  German  note  before  the  note  is  officially 
sent,  and  declares  himself  ready,  before  the  an- 
swer is  drafted,  to  discuss  it  with  M.  P.  so  as  to 
secure  an  agreement  for  its  reception." 

Now,  the  action  of  the  President  since  these 
exposures  were  made  shows  that  M.  P.  either 
spoke  by  direction  of  the  President  or  possessed 
the  gifts  of  mind-reading  and  prophecy;  for  the 
agreement  he  purported  to  convey  to  the  German 
Ambassador  from  the  President  has  since  been 
carried  out  to  the  letter.  Germany  has  never 
made  any  atonement  for  the  Lusitania  case,  but 
when  England  had  destroyed  its  submarines 
around  the  British  Isles,  and  when  Germany  was 
in  consequence  helpless  to  go  on  with  this  kind  of 
warfare,  it  then  consented  to  abandon  it,  eight 



months  after  the  President  had  first  warned 
them  on  the  subject — during  which  eight  months 
it  had  sunk  ship  after  ship  in  defiance  of  the 
President's  warning,  treating  with  the  contempt- 
uous indifference  they  deserved  the  successive 
notes  which  the  President  continued  sending  as 
substitutes  for  action.  As  soon  as  the  President 
had  received  this  make-believe  concession,  he  did 
what  M.  P.  had  assured  the  German  Ambassador 
would  be  done.  He  sent  a  strong  note  to  Eng- 
land. This  note  was  trumpeted  as  showing  that 
the  President  was  taking  the  same  action  against 
Germany  as  against  England.  The  statement 
was  nonsense.  Interference  with  commerce  is 
in  no  sense  whatever  comparable  with  the  hein- 
ousness  of  murder  on  the  high  seas.  The  contro- 
versy with  Great  Britain  was  a  controversy  as  to 
commerce,  as  to  property.  The  controversy  with 
Germany  was  a  controversy  of  humanity  con- 
cerning the  protection  of  innocent  men,  women 
and  children  from  murder  on  the  ocean.  Presi- 
dent Wilson  was  making  good  the  promise  which 
M.  P.  had  alleged  the  President  had  forwarded 
through  him,  and  it  was  being  done  at  the  ex- 
pense of  humanity  and  at  the  expense  of  our  rep- 
utation for  good  faith  and  courage.  All  that 
remains  to  be  seen  is  whether  Mr.  Wilson  will 
now  fulfill  entirely  the  promise  of  M.  P.  to  the 
German  Ambassador  and  carry  out  this  policy 



against  England,  on  which  he  has  embarked,  "to 
the  uttermost." 

But  this  is  not  all.  For  a  year  and  a  quarter 
the  President  had  not  only  kept  silent  over  the 
hideous  wrong  inflicted  on  Belgium  in  and  after 
the  violation  of  its  neutrality  by  Germany,  but 
had  publicly  stated  that  as  regards  this  violation 
of  neutrality,  this  conflict  between  right  and 
wrong,  it  was  our  duty  to  be  "neutral  not  only  in 
word,  but  in  thought."  There  was  no  question 
as  to  what  had  been  done.  The  Chancellor  of 
the  German  Empire  on  August  3rd,  1914,  stated 
that  in  invading  Belgium,  Germany  had  com- 
mitted "a  breach  of  international  law"  and  had 
declined  "to  respect  the  neutrality  of  Belgium," 
and  that  he  admitted  "the  wrong  which  we  are 
now  committing."  Yet  in  spite  of  this  declara- 
tion, and  of  our  inaction,  the  President,  through 
the  Secretary  of  State,  in  his  note  to  England 
used  the  following  expressions:  "The  task  of 
championing  the  integrity  of  neutral  rights  which 
have  received  the  sanction  of  the  civilized  world 
against  the  lawless  conduct  of  belligerents,  the 
United  States  unhesitatingly  assumes  and  to  the 
accomplishment  of  that  task  it  will  devote  its  en- 
ergies." It  is  literally  astounding  that  any  hu- 
man being  could  have  been  guilty  of  the  forget- 
fulness  or  effrontery  of  such  a  statement.  As 
has  been  well  said,  it  is  odious  hypocrisy  to  pose 



as  the  champion  of  neutral  rights  when  the  al- 
leged champion  ignores  homicide,  but  is  fearless 
about  petty  larceny.  In  his  previous  correspon- 
dence with  Germany,  President  Wilson  had  in- 
formed Germany  that  if  it  acted  as  later  it  actual- 
ly did  act,  he  would  hold  it  to  "a  strict  accounta- 
bility," and  he  showed  by  his  subsequent  conduct 
that  in  his  view  these  words  meant  precisely  and 
exactly  nothing.  By  his  previous  conduct  he  has 
shown  that  this  new  announcement  about  "un- 
hesitatingly championing  the  integrity  of  neutral 
rights"  amounts  to  rnuch  less  than  nothing. 

A  year  and  a  half  ago  I  pointed  out  that  it  was 
the  duty  of  the  United  States  to  "champion  the  in- 
tegrity of  the  neutral  rights"  of  Belgium  (which 
had  received  the  sanction  of  the  Hague  Conven- 
tions to  which  the  United  States  was  a  signatory) 
against  the  "lawless  conduct"  of  belligerent  Ger- 
many. At  that  time  the  defenders  of  Mr.  Wilson 
denounced  me  on  the  ground  that  I  "wished  neu- 
trality violated"  and  wished  the  United  States  to 
ignore  its  own  interests  and  meddle  in  something 
which  was,  financially  speaking,  not  its  own  af- 
fair. Mr.  Wilson  himself  publicly  announced 
that  it  was  not  our  duty  to  champion  these  neu- 
tral rights  of  Belgium  against  "the  lawless  con- 
duct of  belligerent"  Germany,  but  that  we  should 
be  neutral,  "not  only  in  word,  but  in  thought." 
Yet  now,  a  year  later,  Mr.  Wilson  repudiates  his 



former  position  and  himself  expresses  exactly  my 
thought  and  my  demand  in  practically  exactly 
my  language.  Only — I  meant  what  I  said! 
Whereas  Mr.  Wilson's  acts  have  shown  that  he 
did  not  mean  what  he  said,  so  far  as  a  nation  of 
which  he  was  afraid  was  concerned.  The  dif- 
ference is  that  having  caused  our  nation  to  shirk 
its  duty  to  others,  having  caused  it  to  shirk  its 
duty  when  its  own  citizens  were  murdered,  so 
long  as  the  offender  was  a  strong  and  ruthless 
nation,  one  with  a  large  voting  strength  of  its 
former  citizens  in  this  country,  he  now  valiantly 
asserts,  against  a  nation  whose  representatives 
have  no  voting  strength  in  this  country  and 
which  he  believes  can  with  impunity  be  defied, 
rights  as  regards  cargoes  of  merchandise  upon 
which  he  did  not  dare  to  insist  when  the  point  at 
issue  was  the  slaughter  of  women  and  children ; 
whereas  I  ask  that  we  stand  up  for  the  wronged 
and  the  weak  against  the  strength  of  evil  tri- 
umphant, and  that  while  we  defend  our  property 
rights,  we  even  more  strongly  defend  the  lives  of 
our  men  and  children,  and  the  lives  and  honor  of 
our  women. 

As  regards  Belgium,  Mr.  Wilson  has  played 
the  part  which  1900  years  ago  was  played  by  the 
Levite  towards  the  wayfarer  who  fell  among 
thieves  near  Jericho.  He  now  improves  on  the 
conduct  of  the  Levite;  for  he  comes  to  an  under- 


standing  with  the  plunderer  of  the  wayfarer  and 
in  his  interest  endeavors  to  browbeat  the  nations 
which  (however  mixed  their  motives)  did  in  ac- 
tual fact  endeavor  to  play  the  part  of  the  Good 
Samaritan  towards  unhappy  Belgium. 

Mr.  Wilson,  a  year  later,  has  finally  adopted 
my  principle  about  preparedness,  although  he  has 
sought  to  apply  it  in  a  half-hearted  and  inefficient 
manner;  a  year  after  I  denounced  peace-at-any- 
price,  he  followed  suit,  quoting  the  verses  of 
Ezekiel  which  for  months  I  had  been  quoting;  a 
year  after  I  had  attacked  hyphenated  American- 
ism Mr.  Wilson  followed  suit— at  least  before 
the  Colonial  Dames ;  and  now  he  accepts  my  doc- 
trine of  America's  duty  to  neutral  nations,  which 
a  year  ago  he  stoutly  opposed.  But  he  applies  it 
only  as  regards  American  dollars,  and  only  in 
relation  to  nations  who  can  be  trusted  not  to  be 
rude.  I  believe  it  should  be  applied  as  regards 
American  dollars,  but  even  more  as  regards 
American  lives,  and  that  it  should  first  and  most 
stoutly  be  asserted  as  regards  the  chief  and  most 
formidable  offender. 

Come  back  to  the  case  of  the  Lusitania! 
When  that  ship  was  sunk  scores  of  women  and 
children,  including  American  women  and  chil- 
dren, paid  with  their  lives  the  penalty  of  a  brutal 
and  murderous  attack  by  a  warship  which  was 
acting  in  pursuance  of  the  settled  policy  of  the 



German  Government.  President  Wilson  sat  su- 
pine and  complacent,  making  on  the  following 
night  his  celebrated  statement  about  a  nation  "be- 
ing too  proud  to  fight,"  a  statement  that  under 
the  circumstances  could  only  be  taken  as  meaning 
that  the  murder  of  American  women  and  children 
would  be  accepted  by  American  men  as  justify- 
ing nothing  more  than  empty  declamation. 
These  men,  women  and  children  of  the  Lusitania 
were  massacred  because  the  German  government 
believed  that  the  Wilson  administration  did  not 
intend  to  back  up  its  words  with  deeds.  The  re- 
sult showed  that  they  were  right  in  their  belief. 
Eight  months  have  gone  by  since  then.  Ameri- 
can ships  were  sunk  and  torpedoed  before  and 
afterward;  other  American  lives  were  lost;  and 
the  President  wrote  other  notes  upon  the  subject ; 
but  he  never  pressed  the  Lusitania  case;  and  the 
only  explanation  must  be  found  in  his  fear  lest 
the  Germans  might  refuse  to  disavow  their  ac- 
tion. Even  the  disavowal  in  the  case  of  the 
Arabic  came  only  when  the  last  possibility  of 
profit  to  Germany  by  killings  that  extended  to 
neutrals  had  vanished.  President  Wilson  had 
done  nothing  beyond  uttering  prettily  phrased 
platitudes  about  abstract  morality  without  any 
relation  to  action. 

On  July  2  ist  last  in  a  formal  note  he  asked  of 
Germany  a  disavowal  and  promise  of  indemnity 



for  the  Lusitania.  This  was  the  note  which  M. 
P.  purported  to  explain  in  the  quotation  above 
given.  If  the  explanation  he  gave  to  the  German 
Ambassador  did  not  represent  President  Wil- 
son's intentions,  then  there  is  absolutely  no  ex- 
planation of  the  fact  that  for  six  months  after 
that  note  was  sent  there  was  no  answer  from 
Germany  and  no  second  demand  made  for  an  an- 
swer. The  subject  was  renewed  only  when  Ger- 
many found  that  her  submarine  warfare  had 
failed,  and  that  it  was  worth  her  while  to  pretend 
to  abandon  it  if  thereby  she  could  get  the  United 
States  to  play  her  game  against  England,  France 
and  Belgium.  Germany  believed,  seemingly  with 
reason,  that  in  return  for  a  pretended  concession 
to  President  Wilson,  the  latter  would  play  Ger- 
many's game  against  England.  And  this  move- 
ment was  only  halted  (whether  temporarily  or 
not  we  can  not  now  say)  by  the  revelations  in 
January  of  the  complicity  of  the  German  Em- 
bassy in  the  plots  against  our  munition  plants. 

Apparently  President  Wilson  has  believed  that 
the  American  people  would  permanently  forget 
their  dead  and  would  slur  over  the  dishonor  and 
disgrace  to  the  United  States  by  that  basest  of 
all  the  base  pleas  of  cowardly  souls,  which  finds 
expression  in  the  statement:  "Oh,  well,  any- 
how the  President  kept  us  out  of  war!"  The 
people  who  make  this  plea  assert  with  qua- 



vering  voices  that  they  "are  behind  the  Presi- 
dent." So  they  are;  well  behind  him.  The  far- 
ther away  from  the  position  of  duty  and  honor 
and  hazard  he  has  backed,  the  farther  behind  him 
these  gentry  have  stood — or  run.  "Stand  by  the 
President" — yes,  while  the  President  is  right ;  and 
stand  against  him  when  he  is  wrong.  In  '56  and 
'60  the  only  way  to  stand  by  Lincoln  was  to  stand 
against  Pierce  and  Buchanan — as  Lincoln  did. 
If  after  the  firing  on  Sumter,  Lincoln  had  im- 
mediately in  a  speech  declared  that  the  friends 
of  the  Union  might  be  "too  proud  to  fight,"  and 
had  spent  the  next  four  months  in  exchanging 
"firm"  diplomatic  notes  with  Jefferson  Davis,  he 
would  have  received  the  enthusiastic  support  of 
the  ardent  adherents  of  peace — and  we  would 
now  have  had  no  country. 

The  German  press,  which  is  sometimes  appal- 
lingly frank,  has  with  refreshing  simplicity  given 
us  the  exact  German  view  when,  in  commenting 
on  Mr.  Wilson's  note  to  England,  the  Koelnische 
Volkszeitung  recently  remarked:  "If  America 
had  from  the  first  energetically  taken  the  posi- 
tion against  Great  Britain  now  adopted,  there 
would  have  been  no  submarine  war,  no  sinking 
of  the  Lusitania  or  the  Arabic." 

Evidently  this  German  paper  is  in  cordial 
agreement  with  M.  P.,  and  it  will  be  impossible 
to  desire  better  proof  of  the  deliberate  purpose 



with  which  the  murderous  assault  on  the  Lusi- 
tania  was  contrived,  and  of  the  German  belief 
that  this  murderous  assault  has  achieved  its  pur- 
pose in  terrorizing  President  Wilson  into  his 
present  action  about  England,  action  which  Dr. 
Dernburg,  speaking  not  only  for  Germany,  but 
for  the  hyphenated  American  voters  of  our  own 
country,  eulogizes  as  showing  that  Mr.  Wilson  is 
entitled  to  reward.  So  he  is — except  from  Amer- 
icans! But  Dr.  Delbrueck,  also  speaking  for 
Germany,  warns  Mr.  Wilson  that  his  note  against 
England  must  be  followed  byv  action  if  he  hopes 
to  retain  German  good  will.  The  insolence  with 
which  the  German  government  browbeats  the 
timid  folk  at  Washington  is  matched  by  the  ex- 
treme cynicism  of  its  brutality.  It  coerces 
wretched  Belgians  to  make  munitions  with  which 
to  kill  their  own  countrymen  and  protests  against 
Americans  making  munitions  to  rescue  Belgium 
from  the  murderers.  And  there  are  Americans 
so  base  as  to  advocate  yielding  to  such  threats 
and  protests;  while  Mr.  Henry  Ford  takes  some 
of  his  fellow  pacifists  on  a  peace-junket  to  Eu- 
rope, in  the  effort  to  bring  about  a  peace  more 
degrading  to  humanity  than  the  worst  war — a 
peace  which  would  consecrate  successful  wrong, 
and  trample  righteousness  in  the  dust. 

As  the  direct  result  of  our  failure  to  act  in 
the  case  of  the  Lusitania,  came  another  hide- 



ous  misdeed,  the  sinking  of  the  Ancona.  Over 
two  hundred  persons,  most  of  them  women 
and  children,  were  murdered  as  a  result  of  this 
submarine  attack  on  a  helpless  passenger  ship. 
Nine  of  those  murdered  were  Americans.  Of 
course,  it  is  a  matter  of  absolutely  no  consequence 
whether  the  deed  was  done  by  an  Austrian  or  a 
German  submarine.  Remember  the  Lusitania! 
The  deaths  of  these  poor  women  and  children  on 
the  Ancona,  and  on  the  various  other  ships  that 
were  sunk  under  similar  circumstances,  were  due 
to  the  cowardice  of  our  action,  of  the  action  of 
the  American  people  through  its  Administra- 
tion, in  the  case  of  the  Lusitania.  If  our  gov- 
ernment had  acted  as  it  ought  to  have  acted 
— as  all  of  us  who  believe  in  American 
honor  demanded  that  it  should  act,  at  the 
time — there  would  be  no  Ancona  case  now, 
no  further  murders  of  women  and  children  on 
the  high  seas.  And  yet  the  Administration  sat 
eagerly,  nervously  waiting  for  some  pretext, 
some  trivial  excuse  which  would  enable  it  to  avoid 
action ;  and  it  acted  at  all  only  when  the  Austrian 
Government  answered  with  such  rude  insolence 
as  to  force  some  action ;  and  even  then,  the  Presi- 
dent did  not  dare  act  about  the  Lusitania  case. 
The  Austrian  vote  in  this  country  is  small  and 
divided,  and  Austria  cannot  menace  us  in  military 
manner.  Neither  statement  applies  to  Germany 



and  the  professional  German- Americans ;  and  ac- 
cordingly President  Wilson  turns  from  the  first 
and  most  formidable  offender,  the  offender  of 
whom  he  is  afraid,  and  seeks  to  distract  attention 
by  action  against  Austria,  of  whom  he  is  much 
less  afraid.  About  the  Lusitania  the  President 
wrote  note  after  note,  each  filled  with  lofty  expres- 
sions and  each  sterile  in  its  utter  futility,  because 
it  did  not  mean  action,  and  Germany  knew  it  did 
not  mean  action.  Then  came  the  Ancona  as  the 
direct  result  of  this  policy  of  shuffling  timidity 
and  delay,  just  as  the  Lusitania  itself  was  the 
direct  result  of  the  policy  of  "watchful  waiting," 
that  is,  of  shuffling  timidity  and  delay,  in  Mex- 
ico. And  after  the  sinking  of  the  Ancona  came 
the  sinking  of  the  Persia,  and  after  the  sinking 
of  the  Persia  the  proofs  of  the  activity  of  Ger- 
many's official  representative,  Von  Papen,  in  the 
campaign  of  murder  and  arson  against  our  mu- 
nition factories.  I  blame  the  Administration,  but 
I  blame  even  more  the  American  people,  who 
stand  supine  and  encourage  their  representatives 
to  permit  unchecked  the  murder  of  women  and 
children  and  other  non-combatants  rather  than 
to  take  a  policy  which  might,  forsooth,  jeopardize 
the  life  of  some  strong  fighting  man. 

The  Administration  has  recently  devised  a 
campaign  button  with  a  new  campaign  catch 
phrase — "safety  first."  It  certainly  expresses 



their  attitude  in  putting  honor  and  duty  in  the 
second  place,  or,  rather,  in  no  place  at  all. 
Safety  first!  This  is  the  motto  on  which  in  a 
shipwreck  those  men  act  who  crowd  into  the  life- 
boats ahead  of  the  women  and  children — although 
they  do  not  afterward  devise  a  button  to  com- 
memorate this  feat.  There  could  be  no  more 
ignoble  motto  for  a  high-spirited  and  duty-lov- 
ing nation.  The  countrymen  of  Washington  and 
Lincoln,  of  Jackson  and  Grant,  of  Lee  and  Farra- 
gut,  ought  to  hang  their  heads  in  shame  at  seeing 
their  representatives  in  Washington  thinking  not 
about  the  slaughtered  women  and  children,  not 
about  the  wrongs  done  to  the  helpless  and  the 
dangers  to  our  own  people,  but  only  about  the 
best  way  to  escape  from  the  situation  without 
being  required  to  show  either  courage  or  patriot- 
ism. It  is  an  evil  day  for  a  people  when  it  per- 
mits its  chosen  representatives  to  practise  the 
gospel  of  cowardice  and  of  utter  and  selfish 
abandonment  of  duty.  Let  our  countrymen  re- 
member that  this  policy  of  dishonor  and  discredit 
does  not  even  secure  the  safety  which  it  seeks. 
The  policy  of  the  Administration  has  not  invited 
respect.  It  has  invited  murder.  It  has  not  se- 
cured peace — which,  by  the  way,  probably  could 
have  been  secured  by  a  policy  of  self-respecting 
strength  and  firmness.  Peace  is  now  in  jeopardy, 
because  weakness  and  timidity  invite  the  constant 



repetition  of  actions  which  will  in  time  goad  any 
nation  into  war. 

Nor  is  this  all.  Germany  and  Austria  have 
not  only  been  carrying  on  war  against  us  on  the 
high  seas.  They  have  carried  on  war  against  us 
here  in  our  own  land.  They  have,  through  their 
representatives,  encouraged  strikes  and  outrages 
in  our  factories.  It  has  been  published  in  the 
press  that  in  their  consulates  and  in  the  foreign 
papers  controlled  or  influenced  by  these  consul- 
ates the  Administration's  ruling  about  "dual  cit- 
izenship" has  been  printed  as  a  warning  to  im- 
migrant workingmen  that  they  were  still  citizens 
of  their  old  countries  and  had  to  obey  the  direc- 
tions of  their  former  governmental  representa- 
tives. Dr.  Joseph  Goricar,  formerly  Austro- 
Hungarian  consul  at  San  Francisco,  has  resigned 
because  he  declined  to  take  part  in  the  organized 
movement  to  destroy  munition  plants  in  this 
country.  This  movement  is  simply  war ;  a  war  of 
assassination  instead  o-f  open  battle,  but  war 
nevertheless ;  and  it  is  the  direct  result  of  the  Ad- 
ministration's supine  position. 

Surely  one  of  our  first  needs  is  self-defence 
against  the  conspirators  of  the  torch  and  the 
bomb.  The  men  who  are  engaged  in  this  work 
are  a  great  deal  worse  than  ordinary  alien  ene- 
mies. The  newspapers  that  apologize  for  their 
deeds  or  condone  them  should  promptly  be  ex- 


eluded  from  the  mails.  The  men  behind  them, 
the  high  governmental  authorities  of  Germany 
and  Austria,  are  engaged  in  a  much  more  vicious 
warfare  in  this  country  than  if  they  were  actu- 
ally resorting  to  open  force  of  arms.  But  Presi- 
dent Wilson  has  been  seeking  to  placate,  not  only 
these  contemptuously  hostile  foreign  nations,  but 
also  the  men  nominally  citizens  of  this  country, 
but  really  loyal  to  the  foreign  countries  now  hos- 
tile to  us.  He  has  by  his  actions  encouraged  these 
men  to  try  to  turn  this  country  into  a  kind  of 
polyglot  boarding-house  where  any  set  of  alien 
boarders  may  preach  disloyalty  and  encourage 
treason  and  murder  with  impunity. 

It  is  sickening  to  have  to  recapitulate  the 
dreadful  deeds  that  have  been  done  during  the 
last  year  and  a  quarter,  while  the  United  States 
sat  tamely  by.  Miss  Cavell  was  killed  for  deeds 
such  as  were  committed  by  literally  thousands  of 
women,  North  and  South,  during  the  Civil  War 
in  this  country;  and  if  either  Abraham  Lincoln 
or  Jefferson  Davis  had  ever  dreamed  of  putting 
any  of  these  women  to  death,  a  deafening  roar 
of  execration  would  have  gone  up  from  the  men 
of  both  sides.  But  there  was  no  hesitation  in 
killing  Miss  Cavell,  and  there  was  no  disappro- 
bation expressed  by  our  Administration.  Bel- 
gium was  blotted  out  from  the  list  of  nations  by 
an  act  which  was  a  more  flagrant  instance  of  in- 



ternational  wickedness  than  anything  that  has 
occurred  since  the  close  of  the  Napoleonic  strug- 
gles; but  this  Administration  did  not  venture  to 
speak  about  it;  and  all  the  professional  pacifists, 
the  men  of  the  stamp  of  Messrs.  Bryan,  Jordan 
and  Ford,  while  with  sobbing  voices  they  called 
for  peace,  peace,  did  not  venture  even  to  allude 
to  the  outrage  that  had  been  perpetrated.  Re- 
member, there  is  not  the  slightest  room  for  hon- 
est question  either  as  to  the  dreadful,  the  un- 
speakably hideous,  outrages  committed  on  the 
Belgians,  or  as  to  the  fact  that  these  outrages 
were  methodically  committed  by  the  express  com- 
mand of  the  German  government,  in  order  to  ter- 
rorize both  the  Belgians  and  among  neutrals 
those  men  who  are  as  cold  and  timid  and  selfish 
as  our  governmental  leaders  have  shown 
themselves  to  be.  Let  any  man  who  doubts  read 
the  statement  of  an  American  eye-witness  of 
these  fearful  atrocities,  Mr.  Arthur  H.  Gleason, 
in  the  New  York  Tribune  of  Nov.  25,  1915.  Ser- 
bia is  at  this  moment  passing  under  the  harrow 
of  torture  and  mortal  anguish.  Now,  the  Ar- 
menians have  been  butchered  under  circum- 
stances of  murder  and  torture  and  rape  that 
would  have  appealed  to  an  old-time  Apache  In- 
dian. The  Administration  can  do  nothing  even  if 
it  wishes ;  for  its  timid  silence  about  Belgium,  its 
cringing  fear  of  acting  in  the  interests  of  our  own 


citizens  when  killed  by  Mexicans  in  Mexico  or 
by  Germans  and  Austrians  on  the  high  seas, 
would  render  any  wordy  protest  on  its  part  a 
subject-matter  for  derision — and  every  one 
knows  that  it  would  not  venture  beyond  a  wordy 

But  in  the  case  of  the  Armenians  some  of  the 
professional  pacifists  and  praisers  of  neutrality 
have  ventured  to  form  committees  and  speak 
about — not  act  about — the  "Armenian  atroci- 
ties." These  individuals  did  not  venture  to  say 
anything  about  the  Belgian  atrocities;  but  they 
are  willing  to  speak,  although  of  course  not  to 
act,  on  behalf  of  Armenia.  The  explanation  is 
simple.  They  were  afraid  of  Germany;  they 
were  afraid  of  the  German  vote.  But  there  is  no 
Turkish  vote,  and  they  are  not  afraid  of  Turkey. 

Under  circumstances  such  as  these  it  is  the  last 
note  of  unpatriotic  folly  for  the  pacifists  of  this 
country  to  chatter  about  peace,  when  they  neither 
venture  to  stand  up  for  righteousness  nor  to  fight 
for  real  preparedness,  so  as  to  enable  the  United 
States  to  insure  justice  for  itself  and  to  demand 
justice  for  others.  Mr.  Taft  accepts  the  presi- 
dency of  the  "League  to  Enforce  Peace,"  and 
must  of  course  know  that  unless  the  United  States 
had  an  army  of  two  or  three  million  men  it  could 
do  nothing  at  all  toward  "enforcing  peace"  in  a 
crisis  like  the  present  world  war;  and  yet,  ac- 



cording  to  the  press,  he  states  that  even  a  stand- 
ing army  of  a  couple  of  hundred  thousand  men 
means  "militarism"  and  "aggression"  and  is  to 
be  opposed.  This  country  will  never  be  able  to 
find  its  own  soul  or  to  play  a  part  of  high  no- 
bility in  the  world  until  it  realizes  the  full  extent 
of  the  damage  done  to  it,  materially  and  morally, 
by  the  ignoble  peace  propaganda  for  which  these 
men  and  the  others  like  them,  whether  capital- 
ists, labor  leaders,  college  professors,  politicians 
or  publicists,  are  responsible. 

The  United  States  has  not  a  friend  in  the 
world.  Its  conduct,  under  the  leadership  of  its 
official  representatives,  for  the  last  five  years  and, 
above  all,  for  the  last  three  years,  has  deprived 
it  of  the  respect  and  has  secured  for  it  the  con- 
tempt of  every  one  of  the  great  civilized  nations 
of  mankind.  Peace  treaties  and  windy  Fourth- 
of-July  eloquence  and  the  base  materialism 
which  seeks  profit  as  an  incident  to  the  abandon- 
ment of  duty  will  not  help  it  now.  For  five  years 
our  rulers  at  Washington  have  believed  that  all 
this  people  cared  for  was  easy  money,  absence 
of  risk  and  effort,  and  sounding  platitudes  which 
were  not  reduced  to  action.  We  have  so  acted 
as  to  convince  other  nations  that  in  very  truth  we 
are  too  proud  to  fight;  and  the  man  who  is  too 
proud  to  fight  is  in  practice  always  treated  as  just 
proud  enough  to  be  kicked.  We  have  held  our 



peace  when  our  women  and  children  were  slain. 
We  have  turned  away  our  eyes  from  the  sight  of 
our  brother's  woe. 

All  of  Mr.  Henry  Ford's  companions,  in  the 
peace  propaganda,  led  by  gentlemen  of  the  Bryan 
and  Jordan  type,  could  with  profit  study  the 
thoughts  expressed  by  Mr.  E.  S.  Martin  when  he 

"Nobody  is  much  good  who  has  not  in  him 
some  idea,  some  ideal,  that  he  cares  more  for 
than  he  does  for  life,  even  though  it  is  life  allevi- 
ated by  the  Ford  motor. 

"You  help  to  make  life  pleasant,  but  war, 
Henry,  helps  to  make  it  noble;  and  if  it  is  not 
noble  it  does  not  matter  a  damn,  Henry,  whether 
it  is  pleasant  or  not.  That  is  the  old  lesson  of 
Calvary  repeated  at  Mons  and  Ypres  and  Liege 
and  Namur. 

"Whether  there  are  more  people  in  the  world 
or  less,  whether  they  are  fat  or  lean,  whether 
there  are  Fords  or  oxen,  makes  no  vital  differ- 
ence ;  but  whether  men  shall  be  willing  to  die  for 
what  they  believe  in  makes  all  the  difference  be- 
tween a  pigsty  and  Paradise.  Not  by  bread 
alone,  Henry,  shall  men  live." 

If  the  people  have  not  vision,  they  shall  surely 
perish.  No  man  has  a  right  to  live  who  has  not 
in  his  soul  the  power  to  die  nobly  for  a  great 
cause.  Let  abhorrence  be  for  those  who  wage 



wanton  or  wicked  wars,  who  with  ruthless  vio- 
lence oppress  the  upright  and  the  unoffending. 
Pay  all  honor  to  the  preachers  of  peace  who  put 
righteousness  above  peace.  But  shame  on  the 
creatures  who  would  teach  our  people  that  it  is 
anything  but  base  to  be  unready  and  unable  to 
defend  right,  even  at  need  by  the  sternest  of  all 
tests,  the  test  of  righteous  war,  war  waged  by  a 
high-couraged  people  with  souls  attuned  to  the 
demands  of  a  lofty  ideal. 

Have  these  professional  pacifists  lost  every 
quality  of  manhood?  Are  they  ignorant  of  the1 
very  meaning  of  nobility  of  soul?  Their  words 
are  an  affront  to  the  memory  of  Washington, 
their  deeds  a  repudiation  of  the  life-work  of  Lin- 
coln. Are  they  steeped  in  such  sordid  material- 
ism that  they  do  not  feel  one  thrill  as  they  read 
Edward  Everett  Male's  "The  Man  Without  a 
Country"?  It  is  strange  indeed  that  even  their 
cold  and  timid  hearts  should  be  unstirred  by 
Lowell's  homely  lines:- 

Better  that  all  our  ships  an'  all  their  crews 
Should  sink  to  rot  in  ocean's  dreamless  ooze, 
Each  torn  flag  wavin'  challenge  as  it  went, 
An'  each  dumb  gun  a  brave  man's  monu- 

Than  seek  sech  peace  ez  only  cowards  crave ; 
Give  me  the  peace  of  dead  men  or  of  brave. 



DURING  the  past  year  the  activities  of  our 
professional  pacifists  have  been  exercised 
almost  exclusively  on  behalf  of  hideous  interna- 
tional iniquity.  They  have  struck  hands  with 
those  evil  enemies  of  America,  the  hyphenated 
Americans,  and  with  the  greediest  representa- 
tives of  those  Americans  whose  only  god  is 
money.  They  have  sought  to  make  this  country 
take  her  stand  against  right  that  was  downtrod- 
den, and  in  favor  of  wrong  that  seemed  likely  to 
be  successful.  Every  man  or  woman  who  has 
clamored  for  peace  without  daring  to  say  that 
peace  would  be  a  crime  unless  Belgium  was  re- 
stored to  her  own  people  and  the  repetition  of 
such  wrongdoing  as  that  from  which  she  has  suf- 
fered provided  against,  has  served  the  Devil  and 
not  the  Lord.  Every  man  or  woman  who  in  the 
name  of  peace  now  advocates  the  refusal  on  the 
part  of  the  United  States  to  furnish  arms  and 
munitions  of  war  to  those  nations  who  have  had 
the  manliness  to  fight  for  the  redressing  of  Bel- 



gium's  wrongs,  is  serving  the  Devil  and  not  the 

As  for  the  hyphenated  Americans,  among  the 
very  many  lessons  taught  by  the  last  year  has 
been  the  lesson  that  the  effort  to  combine  fealty 
to  the  flag  of  an  immigrant's  natal  land  with 
fealty  to  the  flag  of  his  adopted  land,  in  practice 
means  not  merely  disregard  of,  but  hostility  to, 
the  flag  of  the  United  States.  When  two  flags 
are  hoisted  on  the  same  pole,  one  is  always 
hoisted  undermost.  The  hyphenated  American 
always  hoists  the  American  flag  undermost.  The 
American  citizen  of  German  birth  or  descent  who 
is  a  good  American  and  nothing  but  a  good 
American,  and  whose  whole  loyalty  is  undivid- 
edly  given  to  this  country  and  its  flag,  stands  on 
an  exact  level  with  every  other  American,  and  is 
entitled  to  precisely  the  same  consideration  and 
treatment  as  if  his  ancestors  had  come  over  on 
the  Mayflower  or  had  settled  on  the  banks  of  the 
James  three  centuries  ago.  I  am  partly  of  Ger- 
man blood,  and  I  am  exactly  as  proud  of  this 
blood  as  of  the  blood  of  other  strains  that  flows 
in  my  veins.  But — I  am  an  American,  and  noth- 
ing else! 

The  German-Americans  who  call  themselves 
such  and  who  have  agitated  as  such  during  the 
past  year,  have  shown  that  they  are  not  Ameri- 
cans at  all,  but  Germans  in  America.  Their  ac- 



tion  has  been  hostile  to  the  honor  and  the  interest 
of  this  country.  The  man  who  sings  "Deutsch- 
land  iiber  Alles"  means  exactly  what  he  sings. 
He  means  that  he  puts  Deutschland  above  the 
American  flag,  above  the  honor  of  the  United 
States,  and  above  the  well-being  of  Americans  as 
a  whole. 

The  Americans  of  German  origin  have  been  a 
peculiarly  valuable  element  in  our  population.  I 
believe  that  they  are,  in  overwhelming  propor- 
tion, thoroughgoing  Americans.  As  I  have  said, 
I  am  partly  of  German  blood.  A  large  number 
of  my  closest  friends,  a  large  number  of  the  men 
whom  I  most  respect  and  honor  in  American 
life,  are  Americans  of  German  parentage  or  de- 
scent or  of  German  birth.  One  such  American, 
a  descendant  of  one  of  Blucher's  colonels,  sat  in 
my  Cabinet ;  and  he  sat  beside  another  American, 
a  descendant  of  one  of  Napoleon's  brothers. 
But  each  was  an  American  and  nothing  else! 
The  scientific  book  of  which  I  was  proudest,  I 
wrote  in  partnership  with  a  close  friend,  a  natu- 
ralist who  was  with  me  in  Africa;  he  is  of  Ger- 
man parentage ;  but  he  is  an  American  and  noth- 
ing else.  The  man  who  was  closest  to  me  politi- 
cally during  the  ten  years  of  my  service  as 
Governor  and  President  was  of  German  parent- 
age; but  he  was  absolutely  straight  American. 
Some  of  the  best  men  in  my  regiment,  including 



my  orderly  and  one  captain,  were  of  German 
birth  or  descent;  but  they  were  Americans,  pure 
and  simple.  Among  the  clergymen,  philanthro- 
pists, publicists,  good  citizens  of  all  kinds,  with 
whom  I  work  in  heartiest  sympathy,  an  unusually 
large  proportion  are  of  German  descent  and 
some  of  German  birth.  I  get  on  with  these  men 
and  women  exactly  as  well  as  I  do  with  the  men 
and  women  of  Colonial  American  descent.  But 
I  get  on  with  them  because  they  are  Americans 
and  nothing  else. 

I  stand  for  the  American  citizen  of  German 
birth  or  descent,  precisely  as  I  stand  for  any 
other  American.  But  I  do  not  stand  at  all  for 
the  German-American,  or  any  other  kind  of 
hyphenated  American.  When  I  was  President  I 
was  brought  into  close  contact  with  many  officers 
of  the  army  and  navy.  Col.  George  Washington 
Goethals  has  done  the  best  work  done  by  any 
American  of  recent  years.  He  is  of  Dutch  par- 
entage. But  he  is  no.  more  a  Dutch-American 
than  I  am.  He  is  just  plain  American.  Among 
my  military  and  naval  aides  were  Lee,  Grant, 
Sheridan  and  Osterhaus,  all  descended  from 
generals  who  fought  in  the  Union  or  Confed- 
erate Armies.  Two  of  them  were  of  old  Revo- 
lutionary stock,  Scotch  or  English.  The  grand- 
father of  the  third  was  born  in  Ireland,  and  the 
grandfather  of  the  fourth  in  Germany.  But  they 



were  all  Americans  and  nothing  else.  General 
Wood,  of  Revolutionary  stock,  started  Cuba  on 
the  road  to  self-government;  General  Barry,  of 
Irish  parentage,  commanded  the  army  that  res- 
cued Cuba  from  revolution ;  and  one  was  exactly 
as  good  an  American  as  the  other.  Among  the 
admirals  upon  whom  I  leaned  were  Dewey, 
Evans,  Taylor,  and  Cameron  Winslow,  of  Revo- 
lutionary stock;  and  O'Neil  and  Schroeder,  one 
of  Irish  and  the  other  of  German  descent;  and 
the  last  two  were  exactly  as  good  Americans  as 
the  other  four.  It  would  have  been  a  crime  as 
well  as  a  calamity  to  endeavor  to  divide  all  these 
and  all  the  other  fine  and  gallant  officers  of  our 
army  and  navy  on  lines  of  birth  or  national 
origin  or  creed.  It  is  no  less  a  crime  and  a 
calamity  to  attempt  to  divide  our  citizens  as  a 
whole  along  such  lines. 

There  was  never  a  better  American  than  Jacob 
Riis,  who  was  born  in  Denmark  and  whom  I 
always  thought  about  the  best  American  I  ever 
knew.  The  Americans  in  whom  I  believe  in- 
clude Jews  and  Catholics  and  Protestants.  They 
include  men  of  old  native  American  descent  and 
other  men  of  recent  German,  English,  French, 
Irish,  Italian,  Scandinavian,  Magyar  and  Sla- 
vonic descent ;  but  all  are  Americans  entitled  to  be 
treated  as  such,  and  claiming  to  be  nothing  else. 
I  as  emphatically  condemn  opposition  to  a  good 



American  who  happens  to  be  of  German  birth 
or  descent,  because  of  that  fact,  as  I  condemn 
action  by  such  a  man  designed  to  serve  not  the 
United  States,  but  some  foreign  power.  I  speak 
against  the  German-American  who  seeks  to  use 
his  American  citizenship  in  the  interest  of  a 
foreign  power  and  who  thereby  shows  himself 
an  unworthy  American.  I  should  speak  exactly 
as  quickly  against  the  American  of  English  or 
French  or  Scandinavian  or  Irish  descent  who 
was  guilty  of  similar  conduct.  The  following 
letter  which  I  recently  wrote  explains  itself: 

" I  am  very  sorry  but  I  cannot  sign  that 

appeal.  I  do  not  approve  of  it.  You  are  asking 
Americans  to  proclaim  themselves  Anglo-Ameri- 
cans, and  to  sympathize  with  England  on  the 
ground  that  England  is  the  mother-land,  and  in 
order  to  make  what  you  call  'hands  across  the 
sea'  a  matter  of  living  policy.  I  do  not  believe 
that  this  is  the  right  attitude  for  Americans  to 
take.  England  is  not  my  mother-land  any  more 
than  Germany  is  my  father-land.  My  mother- 
land and  father-land  and  my  own  land  are  all 
three  of  them  the  United  States.  I  am  among 
those  Americans  whose  ancestors  include  men 
and  women  from  many  different  European  coun- 
tries. The  proportion  of  Americans  of  this  type 
will  steadily  increase.  I  do  not  believe  in  hyphen- 



ated  Americans.  I  do  not  believe  in  German- 
Americans  or  Irish- Americans ;  and  I  believe  just 
as  little  in  English-Americans.  I  do  not  ap- 
prove of  American  citizens  of  German  descent 
forming  organizations  to  force  the  United  States 
into  practical  alliance  with  Germany  because 
their  ancestors  came  from  Germany.  Just  as  lit- 
tle do  I  believe  in  American  citizens  of  English 
descent  forming  leagues  to  force  the  United 
States  into  an  alliance  with  England  because 
their  ancestors  came  from  England.  We  Ameri- 
cans are  a  separate  people.  We  are  separated 
from,  although  akin  to,  many  European  peoples. 
The  old  Revolutionary  stock  was  predominantly 
English,  but  by  no  means  exclusively  so;  for 
many  of  the  descendants  of  the  Revolutionary 
New  Yorkers,  Pennsylvanians  and  Georgians 
have,  like  myself,  strains  of  Dutch,  French, 
Scotch,  Irish,  Welsh  and  German  blood  in  their 
veins.  During  the  century  and  a  quarter  that 
has  elapsed  since  we  became  a  nation,  there  has 
been  far  more  immigration  from  Germany  and 
Ireland  and  probably  from  Scandinavia  than 
there  has  been  from  England.  We  have  a  right 
to  ask  all  of  these  immigrants  and  the  sons  of 
these  immigrants  that  they  become  Americans 
and  nothing  else;  but  we  have  no  right  to  ask 
that  they  become  transplanted  or  second-rate 
Englishmen.  Most  emphatically  I  myself  am  not. 



an  Englishman-once-removed!     I  am  straight 
United  States! 

"In  international  matters  we  should  treat  each 
nation  on  its  conduct  and  without  the  slightest 
reference  to  the  fact  that  a  larger  or  smaller 
proportion  of  its  blood  flows  in  the  veins  of  our 
own  citizens.  I  have  publicly  and  emphatically 
taken  ground  for  Belgium  and  I  wish  that  the 
United  States  would  take  ground  for  Belgium, 
because  I  hold  that  this  is  our  duty,  and  that 
Germany's  conduct  toward  Belgium  demands 
that  we  antagonize  her  in  this  matter,  and  that 
we  emphatically  and  in  practical  shape  try  to  see 
that  Belgium's  wrongs  are  redressed.  Because 
of  the  British  attitude  toward  Belgium  I  have 
publicly  and  emphatically  approved  of  her  atti- 
tude, that  is  of  Great  Britain's  conduct  in  living 
up  to  her  obligations  by  defending  Belgium,  even 
at  the  cost  of  war.  But  I  am  not  doing  this  on 
any  ground  that  there  is  any  'hands  across  the 
sea'  alliance,  explicit  or  implicit,  with  England. 
I  have  never  used  in  peace  or  in  war  any  such 
expression  as  'hands  across  the  sea,'  and  I  em- 
phatically disapprove  of  what  it  signifies  save  in 
so  far  as  it  means  cordial  friendship  between  us 
and  every  other  nation  that  acts  in  accordance 
with  the  standards  that  we  deem  just  and  right. 
On  this  ground  all  Americans,  no  matter  what 
their  race  origins,  ought  to  stand  together.  It  is 


not  just  that  they  should  be  asked  to  stand  with 
any  foreign  power  on  the  ground  of  community 
of  origin  between  some  of  them  and  the  citizens 
of  that  foreign  power.  [Signed  Theodore 

We  of  America  form  a  new  nationality.  We 
are  by  blood,  and  we  ought  to  be  by  feeling,  akin 
to  but  distinct  from  every  nationality  of  Europe. 
If  our  various  constituent  strains  endeavor  to 
keep  themselves  separate  from  the  rest  of  their 
fellow-countrymen  by  the  use  of  hyphens,  they 
are  doing  all  in  their  power  to  prevent  themselves 
and  ourselves  from  ever  becoming  a  real  nation- 
ality at  all. 

An  American  who  is  loyal  to  this  great  Ameri- 
can nation  has  two  duties,  and  only  two,  in  in- 
ternational matters.  In  the  first  place,  he  is 
bound  to  serve  the  honor  and  the  interest  of  the 
United  States.  In  the  second  place,  he  is  bound 
to  treat  all  other  nations  in  accordance  with  their 
conduct  at  any  given  time,  and  in  accordance 
with  the  ultimate  needs  of  mankind  at  large;  and 
not  in  accordance  with  the  interests  of  the  Euro- 
pean nation  from  which  some  or  all  of  his  an- 
cestors have  come.  If  he  does  not  act  along  these 
lines,  he  is  derelict  in  his  duty  to  his  fellow-citi- 
zens and  he  is  guilty  of  betraying  the  interests 
of  his  country. 

As  for  the  persons  who  base  their  actions  upon 


greed  in  such  a  crisis  as  this,  little  needs  to  be 
said.  The  beef  baron  or  the  representative  of  the 
cotton  interests  who  wishes  to  ignore  the  butch- 
ery of  our  women  and  children,  and  the  sinking 
of  our  ships  by  German  submarines,  and  to  take 
sides  against  the  Allies  so  that  he  may  make 
money  by  the  sale  of  cotton  and  beef,  is  faithless 
to  every  consideration  of  honor  and  decency.  It 
is  entirely  fitting  that  the  sheer  materialist  should 
on  such  an  issue  stand  shoulder  to  shoulder  with 
the  professional  pacifist,  the  peace-at-at-any- 
price  man,  and  with  his  sinister  brother,  the  hy- 
phenated American.  These  men  by  their  actions 
seek  to  condone  the  murder  of  American  men, 
women  and  children  and  the  trampling  of  Bel- 
gium into  bloody  mire.  They  are  false  to  the 
cause  of  humanity.  They  come  perilously  near 
being  treasonable  to  this  country.  It  is  hard  to 
decide  which  is  the  most  abject  quality ;  the  greed 
of  the  mere  materialists  or  the  short-sighted  cow- 
ardice of  the  professional  pacifists.  As  for  the 
hyphenated  American,  he  endeavors  to  serve  his 
foreign  Fatherland  without  exposing  his  own 
wretched  carcass  to  the  danger  which  would 
come  to  him  if  he  served  in  the  trenches  beside 
his  fellow-countrymen  who  have  stayed  at  home 
— and  who  at  least  pretend  to  no  divided  allegi- 

I  am  not  willing  to  admit  that  this  nation  has 


no  duty  to  other  nations.  Yet  the  action  of  this 
Government  during  the  past  year  can  only  be  de- 
fended on  the  assumption  that  we  have  no  such 
duty  to  others. 

Of  course,  it  is  a  defensible,  although  not  a 
lofty,  position  to  deny  that  there  is  such  a  duty. 
But  it  is  wholly  indefensible  to  proclaim  that  there 
is  such  a  duty  and  then  in  practice  to  abandon  it. 
It  is  a  base  thing  to  propose  to  pass  all-inclusive 
arbitration  treaties,  and  to  pass  the  thirty-odd 
all-inclusive  commission  peace  treaties  that  ac- 
tually have  been  passed  during  the  last  two  years, 
and  yet  not  to  dare  to  say  one  word  when  the 
Hague  Conventions  which  we  have  already 
signed  are  violated  by  the  strong  at  the  expense 
of  the  weak.  I  agree  with  the  abstract  theory 
of  the  men  responsible  for  all  these  various  treat- 
ies ;  for  this  theory  is  to  the  effect  that  America 
owes  a  duty  to  the  world,  to  humanity  at  large. 
I  disagree  with  their  practice,  because  I  believe 
that  we  should  in  fact  perform  this  duty,  instead 
of  merely  talking  about  it  in  the  abstract  and 
then  shamefully  abandoning  it  the  moment  it  be- 
comes concrete. 

As  a  nation,  during  the  past  eighteen  months 
we  have  refused  to  prepare  to  defend  our  own 
rights  by  our  own  strength.  We  have  also  re- 
fused to  say  one  word  against  international 
wrongdoing  of  the  most  dreadful  character.  We 



have  refused  to  carry  out  the  promises  we  made 
in  the  Hague  Conventions.  We  have  been  guilty 
of  all  these  mean  sins  of  omission,  we  are  official- 
ly told,  in  the  hope  that  the  Administration  may 
secure  the  empty  honor  of  being  a  go-between 
when  the  belligerents  decide  to  make  peace.  The 
actions  of  the  Administration  have  tended  to 
create  such  conditions  that  the  "peace"  shall  be 
in  the  interest  of  the  wrongdoer,  and  at  the  ex- 
pense of  his  helpless  victim.  It  is  not  right  that 
this  nation  should  be  asked  thus  to  shirk  its  duty 
to  itself  and  to  others  in  order  to  secure  such  a 
worthless  function  for  any  person  whatsoever. 
Our  plain  duty  was  to  stand  against  wrong,  to 
help  in  stamping  out  the  wrong,  to  help  in  pro- 
tecting the  innocent  who  had  been  wronged. 
This  duty  we  have  ignobly  shirked.  Nor  is  there 
any  immediate  probability  that  the  empty  honor 
which  the  Administration  seeks  will  be  granted 
to  it.  If  it  were,  then  doubtless  there  would  be 
shallow  Americans  who  would  trumpet  the  fact 
as  somehow  creditable  to  America.  But  there  is 
not  another  nation  by  which  the  United  States  un- 
der such  conditions  would  be  treated  as  having 
played  any  part  excepting  that  of  a  dupe ;  or  else 
the  part  of  a  cold  and  selfish  intriguer,  willing  to 
sacrifice  the  welfare  of  humanity  to  the  gratifica- 
tion of  personal  vanity. 

Let  our  people  keep  their  eyes  fixed  on  the  case 


of  Belgium.  Belgium  had  faithfully  observed 
her  international  obligations.  She  had  fulfilled 
her  duties  in  a  spirit  of  loyal  impartiality.  She 
had  neglected  no  opportunity  to  maintain  her 
neutrality  and  to  cause  it  to  be  respected  by  oth- 
ers. The  attack  upon  her  independence  by  Ger- 
many was  a  flagrant  violation  of  the  law  of  na- 
tions and  a  crime  against  humanity.  It  has  been 
carried  out  with  inhuman  severity.  There  has 
been  no  more  abhorrent  spectacle  in  history  than 
the  revenge  visited  upon  Belgium  for  her  daunt- 
less defence  of  national  rights  and  international 
obligations.  In  all  the  grim  record  of  the  last 
year  this  is  the  overshadowing  accomplishment 
of  evil.  The  American  who  defends  the  action 
taken  against  Belgium,  or  who  fails  to  condemn 
it,  is  unworthy  to  live  in  a  free  country,  or  to  as- 
sociate with  men  of  lofty  soul  and  generous  tem- 
per. Deep  though  the  hurts  are  which  have  been 
inflicted  upon  civilization  by  the  sacrifice  of  mil- 
lions of  lives  among  the  bravest  and  best  of  the 
men  of  Europe,  yet  deeper  and  more  lasting  is 
the  wound  given  by  the  blow  struck  at  interna- 
tional law  and  international  righteousness  in  the 
destruction  of  Belgium.  This  crime  of  Germany 
was  a  crime  against  international  good  faith,  a 
crime  against  the  soul  of  international  law  and 
fair  dealing.  It  is  to  this  act  of  unforgivable 
treachery  that  every  succeeding  infamy  is  to  be 



traced;  from  terrorism  and  indiscriminate 
slaughter  on  land  to  terrorism  and  indiscriminate 
massacre  of  non-combatants  at  sea.  And  this 
crime  of  Germany  has  been  condoned  by  the 
recreant  silence  of  neutral  nations,  and  above 
all  by  the  recreant  silence  of  the  United  States 
and  its  failure  to  live  bravely  up  to  its  solemn 

I  am  not  speaking  now  of  the  hideous  atroci- 
ties committed  in  Belgium  and  Northern  France, 
as  shown  in  such  reports  as  that  of  the  committee 
of  which  Lord  Bryce  was  Chairman.  I  am  not 
now  speaking  of  the  killing  of  non-combatants, 
including  scores  of  women  and  children,  in  Eng- 
land and  Italy,  by  air-craft  and  sea-craft.  I  deal 
only  with  facts  as  to  which  there  is  no  dispute. 
In  its  broad  outlines,  what  has  occurred  in  the  in- 
vasion of  Belgium  is  not  susceptible  of  dispute. 
The  action  being  taken  at  this  moment  in  Belgium 
is  spoken  of  as  follows  by  the  Norddeutsche  All- 
gemeine  Zeitung  in  replying  to  German  critics 
who  were  actually  asserting  that  Belgium  was 
being  too  mercifully  treated.  The  German  de- 
fence of  Germany's  "merciful"  action  in  Belgium 
is  as  follows  (condensed;  the  italics  are  my  own)  : 

"The  German  government  is  acting  in  Bel- 
gium with  the  object  of  preventing  the  safety  and 
health  of  our  army  from  being  imperiled  by  fam- 
ine and  disease  behind  it.  For  this  reason  the 


German  government  has  gladly  consented  to  food 
being  supplied  to  the  starving  population  by  neu- 
tral countries  in  order  to  insure  that  our  own 
troops  shall  not  suffer  privation.  No  more  coal 
will  be  allowed  to  be  taken  from  Belgian  mines 
than  will  suffice  for  the  bare  needs  of  the  shiver- 
ing people  and  enable  the  industrious  laboriously 
to  exist.  It  is  the  right  of  the  conqueror  and  our 
duty  toward  our  own  army  to  enable  the  con- 
quered territory  to  produce  the  sums  which  with- 
out prejudice  to  a  later  war  indemnity  are  with- 
drawn from  the  country  in  the  shape  of  contri- 
butions. We  demand  at  present  from  Belgium  a 
payment  of  one  hundred  and  twenty  millions  of 
dollars  to  be  made  in  instalments  within  one 
year.  This  sum  represents  the  limit  of  the  pres- 
ent capacity  of  the  country,  which  has  been 
grievously  affected  by  the  war.  The  loss  suffered 
by  Belgium  thus  far  through  actual  destruction 
is  estimated  at  a  value  of  more  than  a  billion  and 
a  quarter  of  dollars.  To  this  figure  we  have  to 
add  the  contribution,  and  the  whole  amount  must 
be  earned  by  Belgium." 

And  the  ignoble  pacifists  of  the  United  States 
are  at  this  moment  agitating  to  prevent  any  ex- 
port of  arms  and  munitions  to  be  used  in  redeem- 
ing the  country  which  is  suffering  such  hideous 
oppression!  There  was  a  period  when  Ameri- 
cans were  proud  of  standing  for  Kossuth  and  for 



Garibaldi,  when  they  subscribed  for  those  who 
had  suffered  from  wrong  in  Ireland  or  Poland, 
when  they  sympathized  with  patriots  wrongfully 
oppressed  in  any  land.  The  Americans  of  a  by- 
gone generation  who  possessed  such  sympathies 
should  turn  in  their  graves  at  the  thought  that 
alleged  believers  in  peace  now  advocate  action  in 
the  interest  of  these  oppressors  who  have 
trampled  on  the  bodies  and  seared  the  souls  of  the 
men,  women  and  children  of  peaceful  and  unof- 
fending Belgium. 

If  no  duty  had  been  expressly  imposed  upon 
the  United  States  in  this  matter,  we  ought  never- 
theless to  have  acted  in  accordance  with  the  gen- 
erous instincts  of  humanity.  But  as  a  matter  of 
fact  such  a  duty  was  expressly  imposed  upon  us 
by  the  Hague  Conventions.  The  Convention, 
signed  at  The  Hague  October  i8th,  lo/)?,1  begins 
by  saying  that  "His  Majesty  the  German  Em- 
peror, King  of  Prussia,"  and  the  other  signatory 

1  See  pp.  133-140  of  "The  Hague  Conventions  and  Decla- 
rations" [1915],  edited  by  James  Brown  Scott.  Dr.  Scott  is 
our  foremost  international  lawyer.  He  is  the  head  of  the 
division  of  International  Law  of  the  Carnegie  Endowment 
for  International  Peace.  He  has  practically  proved  that  he 
is  a  believer  in  the  peace  of  righteousness;  for  he  was  an 
enlisted  man  in  the  American  army  in  the  Spanish  War,  hav- 
ing left  his  position  as  Dean  of  the  Los  Angeles  Law  School, 
now  the  Law  School  of  the  University  of  Southern  Cali- 
fornia, in  order  to  serve  his  country. 



powers,  including  France,  Belgium,  Russia  and 
the  United  States,  have  resolved  to  conclude  a 
Convention  laying  down  clearly  the  rights  and 
duties  of  neutral  powers  in  case  of  war  on  land. 
Article  I  runs:  "The  territory  of  neutral  pow- 
ers is  inviolable."  Article  5  states  that  a  neutral 
power  "must  not  allow  belligerents  to  move 
troops  across  its  territory."  Article  10  states 
that  "the  fact  of  a  neutral  power  resisting  even 
by  force  attempts  to  violate  its  neutrality  cannot 
be  regarded  as  a  hostile  act."  Article  7  states 
that  "a  neutral  power  is  not  called  upon  to  pre- 
vent the  export  or  transport  on  behalf  of  one  or 
other  of  the  belligerents  of  arms,  munitions  of 
war  or  in  general  of  anything  which  could  be  of 
use  to  an  army  or  a  fleet."  This  Convention 
was  ratified  by  Belgium  on  August  8th,  1910;  by 
France  on  October  7th,  1910;  by  Germany,  the 
United  States  and  Russia  on  November  27th, 
1909.  It  has  been  alleged  by  individuals  anxious 
to  excuse  us  for  failure  to  act  in  accordance  with 
our  duty  under  this  Convention  that  article  20 
recites :  "The  provisions  of  the  present  Conven- 
tion do  not  apply  except  between  contracting 
powers  and  then  only  if  all  the  belligerents  are 
parties  to  the  Convention."  In  the  first  place 
this  objection  would  be  merely  technical,  even  if 
in  some  other  area  of  the  war  a  belligerent  who 
was  not  a  party  to  the  Convention  was  concerned; 


for  of  course  the  Convention  must  be  construed 
with  common  sense.  But  even  if  it  is  construed 
in  the  most  technical  manner,  it  applies  to  the 
action  taken  by  Germany  in  Belgium.  This  ac- 
tion was  taken  on  August  3d  and  4th,  1914. 
Germany  was  then  at  war  only  with  France  and 
Russia,  both  of  which  were  signatories  to  this 
convention.  Belgium  was  a  signatory.  The 
United  States  was  a  signatory.  Germany  was 
not  at  war  at  that  time  with  Servia  or  Monte- 
negro or  England;  nor  was  Austria  at  war  with 
Belgium.  When  Germany  violated  the  Hague 
Convention  to  which  we  were  one  of  the  signa- 
tory powers  all  of  the  belligerents  in  the  case 
were  signers  of  the  Hague  Convention.  The 
case  is  technically  no  less  than  morally  complete. 
A  treaty  is  a  promise.  The  signing  powers 
make  promises  each  to  the  others  and  each  to  each 
of  the  others  in  such  a  case  as  this.  Germany 
had  promised  France,  Belgium,  the  United  States 
and  Russia  that  it  would  treat  the  territory  of  a 
neutral  power  (in  this  case  Belgium)  as  invio- 
lable. Germany  violated  this  promise.  Belgium 
had  promised  Germany,  the  United  States, 
France  and  Russia  that  it  would  not  permit  such 
violation  of  its  neutrality  as  Germany  committed. 
Belgium  kept  its  promise.  Germany  had  prom- 
ised that  if  a  neutral  power  (Belgium)  resisted 
by  force  such  an  attempt  as  it,  Germany,  made 


to  violate  its  neutrality,  Germany  would  not  re- 
gard such  an  act  as  hostile.  Germany  broke  this 
promise.  When  Germany  thus  broke  her  prom- 
ises, we  broke  our  promise  by  failing  at  once  to 
call  her  to  account.  The  treaty  was  a  joint  and 
several  guarantee,  and  it  was  the  duty  of  every 
signer  to  take  action  when  it  was  violated ;  above 
all  it  was  the  duty  of  the  most  powerful  neutral, 
the  United  States. 

Germany  promised  that  she  would  not  call 
upon  any  neutral  power  to  prevent  the  export  or 
transport  of  arms  or  munitions  of  war  on  behalf 
of  any  belligerent.  Germany  broke  this  promise 
when  she  made  precisely  such  a  demand  upon  us. 
This  was  a  flagrant  act  of  bad  faith  on  the  part 
of  Germany.  It  is  especially  flagrant  in  view  of 
the  fact,  testified  to  me  by  one  of  the  representa- 
tives at  the  Hague  Conferences,  and  well  known 
to  all  connected  with  the  Hague  Conferences, 
that  this  article  was  insisted  upon  by  Germany. 
Mr.  Charles  Noble  Gregory,  the  Chairman  of  the 
Standing  Committee  on  international  law  of  the 
American  Bar  Association,  in  a  capital  piece  set- 
ting forth  the  right  of  our  citizens  to  sell  muni- 
tions of  war  to  any  belligerent  power,  mentions 
the  same  fact.  He  states  that  one  of  our  Hague 
representatives  told  him  that  the  chief  interest  of 
the  German  delegates  seemed  to  be  in  securing 
this  article,  because  the  Krupp  works  at  Essen 



were  the  chief  purveyors  of  munitions  of  war  to 
foreign  powers. 

A  representative  of  a  great  American  arms 
manufactory  informed  me  recently  that  they  had 
been  about  to  abandon  their  work  prior  to  the 
beginning  of  this  war,  because  the  Germans  sys- 
tematically endeavored  to  undersell  them  in 
every  country.  It  has  been  the  settled  policy  of 
Germany  to  drive  all  other  countries  out  of  the 
business  of  manufacturing  arms  and  supplies  be- 
cause, of  course,  if  this  were  once  substantially 
accomplished,  the  rest  of  the  world  would  be  com- 
pletely helpless  before  Germany;  and  Germany 
has  made  it  evident  that  she  knows  no  such  thing 
as  international  morality  and  looks  upon  all  other 
nations,  including  the  United  States,  merely  as 
possible  prey.  The  Americans  who  are  now 
striving  to  prevent  the  sale  of  munitions  of  war 
to  the  countries  endeavoring  to  secure  the  re- 
dress of  Belgium's  wrongs,  that  is,  the  Allied 
Powers,  are  playing  the  game  of  a  ruthlessly 
militaristic  and  anti- American  Germany  against 
their  own  country  as  well  as  against  the  interests 
of  humanity  at  large.  They  are  profoundly  un- 
patriotic from  the  standpoint  of  the  interests  of 
the  United  States.  They  are  committing  the 
gravest  possible  offence  against  the  cause  of  in- 
ternational right  and  of  the  interest  of  humanity. 

It  was  Germany  which  for  decades  supplied 


Turkey  with  the  means  of  keeping  the  Christians 
of  her  European  and  Asiatic  provinces  in  a  state 
of  dreadful  subjection.  It  was  Germany  which 
established  the  artillery  in  the  Belgian  forts — 
and,  as  one  of  the  men  engaged  in  the  work  in- 
formed a  friend  of  mine,  the  German  War  Of- 
fice was  then  furnished  with  blue-prints  of  what 
had  been  done  and  of  the  neighboring  geography, 
so  as  to  enable  the  German  armies  to  take  the 
forts  with  the  least  possible  delay  and  damage. 
Essen  has  been  the  center  of  military  supplies  to 
belligerents  and  has  exported  on  an  enormous 
scale  to  belligerents  in  all  the  modern  wars,  mak- 
ing vast  profits  from  this  traffic  even  in  the  late 
Balkan  wars.  Germany  has  consistently  fol- 
lowed this  course,  even  when  one  of  the  belliger- 
ents alone  had  access  to  her  markets  and  the 
other,  with  which  she  was  nominally  in  sympathy, 
had  no  such  access.  This  was  shown  in  the  Boer 
War.  Among  the  supplies  furnished  by  Ger- 
many to  Great  Britain  for  use  against  the  Boers 
were  108  fifteen  pounder  quick-firing  guns  and 
54,000  rounds  of  ammunition  for  them;  65,000 
hundredweight  of  swords,  cutlasses,  bayonets 
and  arms  of  other  sorts;  8,000,000  rounds  of 
small-arms'  ammunition  and  1,000,500  of  metal 
cartridge  cases  other  than  small-arms'  ammuni- 
tion ;  and  some  27,000  hundredweight  of  cordite, 
gunpowder,  dynamite  and  the  like.  In  short, 



Germany  has  thriven  enormously  on  the  sale  of 
arms  to  belligerents  when  she  was  a  neutral ;  she 
insisted  that  such  sale  be  sanctioned  by  the  Hague 
Conventions;  she,  so  far  as  possible,  desires  to 
prevent  other  nations  from  manufacturing  arms; 
and  if  she  is  successful  in  this  effort  she  will  have 
taken  another  stride  to  world  dominion.  The 
professional  pacifists,  hyphenated  Americans, 
and  beef  and  cotton- Americans ;  in  short,  all  the 
representatives  of  American  mollycoddleism, 
American  greed,  and  downright  treachery  to 
America,  in  seeking  to  prevent  shipments  of  mu- 
nitions to  the  Allies,  are  playing  the  game  of  a 
brutal  militarism  against  Belgium  and  against 
their  own  country. 

Of  course,  if  sales  of  munitions  are  improper 
in  time  of  war,  they  are  precisely  as  improper  in 
time  of  peace,  for  in  time  of  peace  they  are  made 
only  with  a  view  to  possible  war.  To  prohibit 
them  is  to  put  a  premium  upon  aggressive  nations 
manufacturing  their  own  ammunition,  for  it  is 
the  non-aggressive  nations  that  do  not  conduct 
great  manufactories  for  munitions  of  war.  On 
November  13,  1870,  Goldwin  Smith,  who  was  in 
ardent  sympathy  with  the  Germans  in  their  con- 
test with  France  of  that  year,  wrote  to  his  friend, 
Max  Miiller,  upholding  the  propriety  of  the  ac- 
tion of  the  United  States  in  selling  munitions  of 
war  to  France,  the  right  to  do  which  had  been  in- 



sisted  upon  by  President  Grant.  He  stated  that 
the  Americans  were  acting  in  accordance  with 
the  right  view  of  international  law  in  refusing 
to  prohibit  such  sales  of  arms.  His  letter  runs  in 
part:  "If  this  were  done,  a  great  disadvantage 
would  be  given  against  the  interests  of  civiliza- 
tion to  the  Powers  which  during  peace  employed 
their  revenues  in  arming  themselves  for  war  in- 
stead of  endowing  professors.  A  moral  and  civ- 
ilized people  which  had  been  benefiting  humanity 
would  be  assailed  by  some  French  Empire  which 
had  been  collecting  chassepots,  and  when  it  wants 
to  provide  itself  with  the  means  of  defence  inter- 
national law  would  shut  up  the  gunshops." 

In  our  existing  treaties  with  Germany  the 
right  to  such  shipment  of  arms  is  explicitly  af- 
firmed, as  it  has  also  been  in  the  Hague  Conven- 
tion from  which  I  have  above  quoted.  The 
American  government  has  always  maintained  the 
right  of  its  citizens  to  ship  arms  to  belligerents. 
President  Washington,  through  his  Secretary  of 
State,  Thomas  Jefferson,  and  his  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  Alexander  Hamilton,  took  this  posi- 
tion when  France  protested  against  the  sale  of 
arms  to  England  in  1793,  the  answer  being  that 
"the  exporting  from  the  United  States  of  war- 
like instruments  and  military  stores  is  not  to  be 
interfered  with."  President  Lincoln,  through 
his  Secretary  of  State,  William  H.  Seward,  took 

1 60 


this  view  in  1862,  when  Mexico  complained  of 
the  export  of  military  supplies  from  the  United 
States  for  the  benefit  of  the  French.  President 
Lincoln  and  Secretary  Seward  sympathized  with 
Mexico  but  explicitly  informed  Mexico  that 
Mexico  could  not  "prescribe  to  us  what  merchan- 
dise we  shall  not  sell  to  French  subjects  because 
it  may  be  employed  in  military  operations  against 
Mexico."  President  Grant  and  Secretaries  of 
State  Henry  Clay,  Bayard,  Elaine,  Olney  and 
John  Hay  are  among  the  high  officials  who  have 
publicly  taken  the  same  position. 

At  this  time  to  alter  such  a  rule  during  the 
pendency  of  a  state  of  war  to  the  benefit  of  one 
of  the  warlike  powers  would  be  to  place  the 
United  States  on  the  side  of  that  power — of  the 
wrongdoing  power — and  to  make  it  in  effect  it- 
self a  belligerent.  The  position  was  correctly 
stated  on  January  25,  1915,  by  President  Wilson 
through  Secretary  of  State  Bryan  in  a  published 
letter  which  recites  that  "the  duty  of  a  neutral 
to  restrict  trade  in  munitions  of  war  has  never 
been  imposed  by  international  law  or  by  munici- 
pal statute.  It  has  never  been  the  policy  of  this 
government  to  prevent  the  shipment  of  arms  or 
ammunition  into  belligerent  territory;"  and  in 
response  to  the  German  protest  it  was  stated  that 
our  right  to  export  munitions  of  war  to  belliger- 
ents was  settled  and  assured  and  it  was  declared 



that  our  government  holds  "that  any  change  in 
its  own  laws  of  neutrality  during  the  progress  of 
a  war  which  would  affect  unequally  the  relations 
of  the  United  States  with  the  nations  at  war 
would  be  an  unjustifiable  departure  from  the 
principles  of  strict  neutrality  by  which  it  has 
sought  to  direct  its  actions." 

A  great  expert  on  international  law  has  said 
"that  a  system  under  which  a  peaceful  commer- 
cial state  may  not,  when  attacked,  use  her  cash 
and  her  credits  in  international  markets  to  equip 
herself  for  defence  is  intolerable  and  in  every 
way  pernicious.  Rules  which  interfere  with  such 
a  right  would  tend  to  give  the  victory  in  war  to 
the  belligerent  best  prepared  at  the  outset  and 
therefore  to  make  it  necessary  for  peaceful  na- 
tions to  be  in  a  constant  state  of  over-prepared- 
ness." Under  the  German  proposal  a  well  be- 
haved state  which  was  not  armed  to  the  teeth 
could  not,  if  wantonly  attacked,  be  allowed  to 
equip  herself  for  defence.  The  American  pro- 
fessional pacifists,  in  accepting  the  German  po- 
sition in  this  matter,  are,  as  usual,  playing  into 
the  hands  of  the  Powers  that  believe  in  unprin- 
cipled aggression.  The  United  States,  if  sud- 
denly assailed  by  some  great  military  power, 
would  suffer  incalculably  from  the  application  of 
the  doctrine  thus  advanced  by  our  silly  profes- 
sional pacifists. 



The  warlike  and  aggressive  nation  chooses  the 
moment  of  attack  and  is  fully  equipped  in  ad- 
vance. If  the  nation  assailed  cannot  replenish 
her  supplies  from  outside,  she  must  always  main- 
tain them  in  time  of  peace  at  the  highest  point  or 
else  expose  herself  to  ruin.  The  professional 
pacifists,  the  cotton-Americans,  the  beef  barons 
and  the  German- Americans — in  other  words,  the 
hyphenated  Americans,  the  greedy  materialists 
and  all  the  mollycoddles  of  both  sexes — advocate 
the  prohibition  of  the  shipment  of  munitions  to 
the  Allies  who  are  engaged  in  fighting  Belgium's 
battles.  They  thereby  take  a  stand  which,  not 
merely  in  the  concrete  case  of  the  moment  but  in 
all  future  cases,  would  immensely  benefit  power- 
ful and  aggressive  nations  which  cynically  disre- 
gard the  rules  of  international  morality  at  the 
expense  of  the  peaceful  and  industrial  nations 
which  have  no  thought  of  aggression  and  which 
act  toward  their  neighbors  with  honorable 
good  faith. 

From  the  standpoint  of  international  law,  as 
I  have  shown  above,  we  have  the  absolute  right 
to  make  such  shipments.  Washington  and  Lin- 
coln, in  fact  all  our  Presidents  and  secretaries 
have  peremptorily  refused  to  allow  this  right  to 
be  questioned.  The  right  has  been  insisted  upon 
by  Germany  in  her  own  interest,  more  strongly 
than  by  any  other  nation,  up  to  the  beginning  of 



the  present  war.  It  has  been  exercised  by  Ger- 
many herself  on  a  larger  scale  than  by  any  other 
nation  up  to  the  time  that  she  herself  went  to  war. 
From  the  standpoint  of  morality  the  justifica- 
tion is  even  more  clear.  Selling  arms  to  a  bel- 
ligerent may  be  morally  either  very  right  or  very 
wrong.  This  depends  absolutely  upon  the  jus- 
tice of  the  cause  in  which  the  arms  are  to  be  used. 
This  is  as  true  in  international  as  in  private 
matters.  It  is  moral  and  commendable  to  sell 
arms  to  a  policeman  in  order  that  he  may  put 
down  black-handers,  white-slavers,  burglars, 
highwaymen  and  other  criminals  who  commit 
acts  of  violence.  It  is  immoral  to  sell  arms  to 
those  who  are  committing  or  intend  to  commit 
such  acts  of  violence.  In  the  same  way  it  is  thor- 
oughly immoral  in  any  way  to  help  Germany  win 
a  triumph  which  would  result  in  making  the  sub- 
jugation of  Belgium  perpetual.  It  is  highly 
moral,  it  is  from  every  standpoint  commendable, 
to  sell  arms  which  shall  be  used  in  endeavoring 
to  secure  the  freedom  of  Belgium  and  to  create 
a  condition  of  things  which  will  make  it  impos- 
sible that  such  a  crime  against  humanity  as  its 
subjugation  by  Germany  shall  ever  be  repeated, 
whether  by  Germany  or  by  any  other  power. 





IN  the  33d  chapter  of  the  great  prophet  Eze- 
kiel,  the  first  six  verses  run  as  follows: 

1.  Again  the  word  of  the  Lord  came  unto  me, 
saying : 

2.  Son  of  man,  speak  to  the  children  of  thy 
people  and  say  unto  them,  When  I  bring  the 
sword  upon  a  land,  if  the  people  of  the  land  take 
a  man  of  their  coasts  and  set  him  for  the  watch- 

3.  If  when  he  seeth  the  sword  come  upon  the 
land,  he  blow  the  trumpet  and  warn  the  people; 

4.  Then  whosoever  heareth  the  sound  of  the 
trumpet  and  taketh  not  warning,  if  the  sword 
come  and  take  him  away,  his  blood  shall  be  upon 
his  own  head; 

5.  He  heard  the  sound  of  the  trumpet  and 
took  not  warning,  his  blood  shall  be  upon  him. 
But  he  that  taketh  warning  shall  deliver  his  soul. 

6.  But  if  the  watchman  see  the  sword  come 
and  blow  not  the  trumpet  and  the  people  be  not 
warned ;  if  the  sword  come  and  take  any  person 



from  among  them,  he  is  taken  away  in  his  ini- 
quity; but  his  blood  will  I  require  at  the  watch- 
man's hand. 

I  very  heartily  commend  these  verses  to  the 
prayerful  consideration  of  all  those  in  high  po- 
litical office,  whether  Presidents,  Secretaries  of 
State,  or  leaders  of  the  Senate  and  the  House  at 
Washington;  and  to  all  male  and  female  college 
presidents,  clergymen,  editors  and  publicists  of 
pacifist  tendency ;  and  above  all  to  the  sometimes- 
well-meaning  souls  who  have  fallen  victims  to 
the  habit  of  prolonged  and  excessive  indulgence 
in  attending  universal  peace  meetings  and  giving, 
and  listening  to,  lectures  on  immediate  universal 
peace  and  disarmament. 

Five  years  have  gone  by  since  Mexico,  which 
had  made  no  preparedness  whatever  against  for- 
eign war,  was  thrown  into  a  violent  civil  war,  at- 
tended with  circumstances  which  made  it  our 
duty  to  take  action,  a  duty  which  during  the  five 
years  we,  in  our  turn,  have  sedulously  avoided 
fulfilling  in  efficient  fashion.  Eighteen  months 
have  passed  since  the  great  world  war  that  cen- 
ters in  Europe  burst  out  with,  as  its  first  result, 
the  hideous  destruction  of  the  Belgian  people — a 
destruction  primarily  due  to  the  fact  that  Bel- 
gium had  not  prepared  against  war  as  Switzer- 
land had  prepared.  The  United  States,  in  con- 
nection with  The  Hague  treaties,  had  undertaken 



certain  obligations  to  Belgium  and  to  both  neu- 
tral and  belligerent  powers.  With  criminal  ti- 
midity we  have  failed  to  fulfill  these  obligations. 
We  have  also  failed  to  stand  up  for  the  rights 
of  our  own  people  in  any  efficient  fashion,  even 
when  our  men,  women  and  children  were  mur- 
dered on  the  high  seas.  We  have  earned,  and 
have  richly  deserved,  the  contemptuous  dislike 
of  all  the  nations  of  mankind  by  the  course  we 
have  followed  for  a  year  as  regards  the  great 
world  war,  and  for  five  years  as  regards  Mex- 
ico. Worst  of  all,  we  have  utterly  failed,  even 
with  the  lesson  of  the  last  year  writ  in  blood  and 
fire  before  our  eyes,  to  take  steps  to  protect  our- 
selves from  such  horrors. 

It  is  we  ourselves,  it  is  the  American  people, 
who  are  responsible  for  the  public  sentiment 
which  permits  unworthy  action  on  the  part  of 
our  governmental  representatives.  The  peace 
propaganda  of  the  past  ten  years  in  this  country 
has  steadily  grown  more  noisy.  It  received  an 
enormous  impetus  when  five  years  ago,  by  the 
negotiation  of  peace-at-any-price  or  all-inclusive 
arbitration  treaties,  and  in  the  last  year  by  the 
ratification  of  the  thirty  odd  peace-at-any-price 
arbitration-commission  treaties,  it  was  made 
part  of  our  national  governmental  policy.  It  is 
the  literal  truth  to  say  that  this  peace-at-any- 
price  propaganda  has  probably,  on  the  whole, 



worked  more  mischief  to  the  United  States  than 
all  the  crookedness  in  business  and  politics  com- 
bined during  the  same  period.  It  has  repre- 
sented more  positive  deterioration  in  the  Ameri- 
can character.  Millions  of  plain  Americans, 
who  do  not  have  the  opportunity  to  know  the 
facts  or  to  think  them  out  for  themselves,  have 
been  misled  in  this  matter.  They  are  not  to 
blame;  but  the  leaders  and  organizers  of  that 
movement,  its  upholders  and  apologists  on  the 
stump  and  in  the  pulpit  and  in  the  press,  are  very 
greatly  to  blame.  Really  good  and  highminded 
clergymen,  capable  of  foresight  and  brave  enough 
to  risk  being  misrepresented,  have  stood  stead- 
fastly against  the  odious  creed  which  puts  peace 
ahead  of  righteousness.  But  every  cheap  man 
in  the  pulpit,  like  every  cheap  demagogue  on  the 
stump,  has  joined  in  the  "peace-at-any-price"  cry. 
Some  of  the  men  and  women  who  uphold  the 
cause  of  the  professional  pacifists  are  actuated 
by  good  motives.  The  same  statement  can  be 
made  of  some  of  the  Tories  in  the  Revolution- 
ary War,  of  some  of  the  Copperheads  in  the  Civil 
War.  But  the  fact  remains  in  this  case,  as  in 
the  case  of  the  Copperheads  and  the  Tories,  that 
the  sum  of  the  activities  of  the  men  and  women 
thus  engaged  was  purely  mischievous  and  rep- 
resented evil  to  America  and  evil  to  the  cause  of 
international  justice  and  right.  Wilkes  Booth 



was  an  honest  man;  when  he  assassinated  Lin- 
coln he  was  doubtless  sincere  in  the  belief  that 
he  was  doing  right;  and  great  courage  was 
needed  to  perform  the  evil  feat.  Yet  surely 
Wilkes  Booth  did  a  worse  deed  than  the  most  cor- 
rupt politician  or  businessman  of  his  time.  In 
exactly  the  same  way  the  man  who  preaches 
peace  at  any  price,  non-resistance  to  all  wrong, 
disarmament  and  the  submission  of  everything 
to  arbitration,  no  matter  how  sincere  and  honest 
he  may  be,  is  rendering  a  worse  service  to  his 
fellow-countrymen  than  any  exponent  of  crooked 
business  or  crooked  politics. 

The  deification  of  peace  without  regard  to 
whether  it  is  either  wise  or  righteous  does  not 
represent  virtue.  It  represents  a  peculiarly  base 
and  ignoble  form  of  evil.  For  this  reason  it  is 
a  positive  detriment  to  international  morality  for 
any  man  to  take  part  in  any  of  these  universal 
peace-at-any-price  or  all-inclusive  arbitration 
movements.  Nor  is  this  all.  A  movement  right 
in  itself  may  be  all  wrong  if  made  at  the  wrong 
time.  Even  the  proposal  for  a  world  peace  of 
righteousness,  based  on  force  being  put  back  of 
righteousness,  is  inopportune  at  this  time. 

There  are  far  more  pressing  and  immediate 
duties.  First  and  foremost,  the  United  States 
must  seriously  prepare  itself  against  war,  and 
show  itself  able  to  maintain  its  rights  and  make 



its  weight  felt  in  the  world.  Next,  it  must  aban- 
don both  the  policy  of  poltroonery — the  policy 
we  have  practised  as  regards  the  Lusitania  and 
Mexico — and  the  policy  of  recklessly  making 
promises  which  neither  can  nor  ought  to  be  kept 
— the  policy  we  practiced  in  the  proposed  all- 
inclusive  arbitration  treaties  five  years  ago,  and, 
above  all,  in  the  unspeakably  silly  and  wicked 
thirty  all-inclusive  arbitration-commission  trea- 
ties actually  negotiated  under  the  present  Ad- 
ministration. Our  people  should  note  well  the 
fact  that  these  treaties  were  in  principle 
promptly  repudiated  by  the  very  President  who 
had  negotiated  them  as  soon  as  Mr.  Bryan  asked 
that  the  principle  be  concretely  applied  in  the  case 
of  the  Lusitanics. 

When  we  are  prepared  to  make  our  words 
good  and  have  shown  that  we  make  no  promises 
which  we  are  not  both  ready  and  willing  to  back 
up  by  our  deeds,  then,  and  not  until  then,  we 
shall  be  able  with  dignity  and  effect  to  move 
for  the  establishment  of  a  world  agreement  to 
secure  the  peace  of  justice.  Such  agreement 
must  explicitly  state  that  certain  national  rights 
are  never  to  be  arbitrated  because  the  nations 
are  to  be  protected  in  their  exercise;  that  other 
matters  shall  be  arbitrated;  and  that  the  power 
of  all  the  nations  shall  be  used  to  prevent  wrong 
being  done  by  one  nation  at  the  expense  of  an- 



other.  To  put  peace  above  righteousness  is 
wicked.  To  chatter  about  it,  without  making 
ready  to  put  strength  behind  it,  is  silly. 

But  all  this  is  for  the  fufure,  and  it  is  beating 
the  air  to  talk  about  it  at  present.  "Ephraim 
feedeth  on  wind" — and  wind  is  not  a  substantial 
diet.  A  nation  which  is  "too  proud  to  fight"  is  a 
nation  which  is  sure  to  be  kicked;  for  every 
fighting  man  or  nation  knows  that  that  particu- 
lar kind  of  "pride"  is  merely  another  name  for 
abject  cowardice.  A  nation  helplessly  unable  to 
assert  its  own  rights;  a  nation  which  for  five 
years  has  refused  to  do  its  duty  in  Mexico  and 
yet  is  unwilling  to  see  other  nations  do  their 
duty  there ;  a  nation  which  without  the  utterance 
of  one  word  of  protest  has  seen  The  Hague  Con- 
ventions which  it  signed  torn  to  pieces  and 
thrown  to  the  winds ;  a  nation  which  has  not  ven- 
tured beyond  empty  words  when  its  ships  were 
sunk  and  its  citizens,  men,  women  and  children, 
slain  on  the  high  seas,  is  in  no  position  to  help 
the  cause  of  either  peace  or  justice,  and  would 
excite  merely  derision  if  it  proposed  at  this  mo- 
ment the  creation  of  a  "World  League  for 

The  six  great  powers  of  Europe  have  sent 
their  best  and  their  bravest  by  the  million  to  die 
for  the  right  as  God  gave  them  to  see  the  right. 
All  their  finest  young  men  are  at  the  front. 



Some  of  them  are  fighting  for  good,  some  for 
evil;  but  all  are  fighting  for  what  they  think  to 
be  good,  and  all  are  showing  splendid  and  heroic 
qualities.  We  excite  only  derision  when  under 
these  circumstances  we  permit  foolish  people, 
men  and  women,  in  the  name  of  America  to  prat- 
tle in  meaningless  words  about  the  kind  of  peace 
that  brave  men  and  high-minded  women  will  al- 
ways scorn.  The  all-insistent  duty  of  the  mo- 
ment for  America  is  two- fold.  First,  we  must 
prepare  ourselves  against  disaster  by  facing  the 
fact  that  we  are  nearly  impotent  in  military  mat- 
ters, and  by  remedying  this  impotence.  Second, 
we  must  seriously  and  in  good  faith,  and  once  for 
all,  abandon  the  wicked  and  foolish  habit  of  treat- 
ing words  as  all-sufficient  by  themselves,  and  as 
wholly  irrelevant  to  deeds;  and  as  an  incident 
thereto  we  must  from  now  on  .refuse  to  make 
treaties  which  cannot  be,  and  which  will  not  be, 
lived  up  to  in  time  of  strain. 

As  regards  the  last  matter,  promise  and  per- 
formance, we  Americans  must  rid  ourselves  of 
the  habit  of  salving  our  vanity,  when  down  at 
bottom  we  know  we  are  not  behaving  well,  by 
using  fine  words  to  excuse  ourselves  from  effort 
which  ought  to  be  made,  and  to  justify  ourselves 
in  avoiding  risk  which  ought  to  be  accepted. 

There  are  persons  who  are  against  prepared- 
ness for  war  and  who  believe  in  the  avoidance  of 



national  duty,  who  nevertheless  are  honest  in 
their  belief  and  who  may  not  be  cowardly  or 
weak,  but  only  foolish  and  misguided ;  and  there 
are  hundreds  of  thousands  of  good  and  reason- 
ably brave  men  and  women  who  simply  have  not 
thought  of  the  matter  at  all  and  who  are  mis- 
guided by  their  leaders.  But  of  most  of  these 
leaders  it  is  not  possible  to  take  so  charitable  a 
view.  The  fundamental  characteristic  of  the 
peace-at-any-price  men  is  sheer,  downright  phys- 
ical or  moral  timidity.  Very  many  of  the  leaders 
among  the  men  who  protest  against  preparedness 
and  who  are  hostile  to  manly  action  on  our  part — 
hostile  to  the  insistence  in  good  faith  upon  the  ob- 
servance of  The  Hague  Conventions  and  upon  re- 
spect for  the  lives  and  property  of  our  citizens  in 
Mexico  and  on  the  high  seas — are  easily  cowed 
by  any  exhibition  of  ruthless  and  brutal  force, 
and  never  venture  to  condemn  wrongdoers  who 
make  themselves  feared.  This  fact  might  just 
as  well  be  faced.  To  it  is  due  the  further  fact 
that  the  professional  pacifist  usually  turns  up  as 
the  ally  of  the  most  cynical  type  of  international 

This  has  been  made  evident  by  the  attitude  of 
the  great  bulk  of  the  men  and  women  who  have 
shrieked  loudest  for  peace  during  the  last  eight- 
een months.  It  has  been  made  evident  by  the  men 
who  have  joined  in  the  Peace  Conferences,  Peace 



Dinners  and  Peace  Voyages  during  that  time, 
and  by  the  women  of  the  same  type  who  on  this 
side  of  the  water,  or  after  traveling  to  the  other 
side  of  the  water,  have  advocated  a  peace  with- 
out honor  or  justice.  These  men  and  women 
have  demanded  peace  in  terms  that  would  not 
merely  disregard  righteousness,  but  that  would 
crown  unrighteousness  with  success.  They  have 
not  ventured  to  make  one  protest  against  any 
concrete  act  of  wrongdoing;  they  have  not  ven- 
tured to  raise  their  voices  in  denunciation  of  the 
iniquity  wrought  by  Germany  against  Belgium, 
the  most  wanton,  the  most  hideous  wrong,  and 
the  wrong  on  the  largest  scale,  that  had  been  per- 
petrated for  over  a  century.  Some  of  the  women 
in  question  were  abroad,  actively  engaged  in  ex- 
citing contempt  and  derision  for  themselves  and 
their  country  by  crying  for  peace  without  justice 
and  without  redress  of  wrongs,  at  the  very  time 
that  the  Lusitania  was  sunk. 

American  women  and  children  were  at  the  time 
being  slain  on  the  high  seas ;  Belgian  women  and 
children,  French  women  and  children,  in  Belgium 
and  Northern  France,  were  at  the  same  time  suf- 
fering the  last  extremities  of  infamy  and  out- 
rage ;  English  women  and  children,  in  unfortified 
towns,  were  being  killed  by  the  bombs  of  German 
war  vessels  and  aircraft ;  and  our  own  women  in 
Mexico  had  been  subjected  to  nameless  infamies. 


But  these  amiable  peace  prattlers  had  not  one 
word  of  effective  sympathy  for  any  of  the  wo- 
men and  children  who  had  suffered  these  dreadful 
fates.  All  they  did  was  to  utter  silly  platitudes, 
which  were  of  comfort  to  the  wrongdoers,  and 
which,  in  so  far  as  they  had  any  effect,  con- 
founded right  and  wrong  and  put  a  premium 
upon  wrongdoing  by  making  it  evident  that,  if 
successful,  it  would  escape  condemnation;  be- 
cause the  condemnation  was  so  uttered  as,  if  any- 
thing, to  bear  more  heavily  on  those  who  resisted 
wrong  than  upon  those  who  inflicted  wrong. 
There  is  no  meaner  moral  attitude  than  that  of 
a  timid  and  selfish  neutrality  between  right  and 

Such  action  does  not  represent  righteousness. 
At  best  it  represents  folly.  Often  it  represents 
cowardice.  Always  it  represents  unrighteous- 
ness. Not  the  smallest  particle  of  good  has  come 
from  the  peace  propaganda  of  the  last  ten  years 
as  carried  on  in  America.  Literally,  this  agita- 
tion of  the  professional  pacifists  during  these  ten 
years  has  not  represented  the  smallest  advance 
toward  securing  the  peace  of  righteousness.  It 
has,  on  the  other  hand,  represented  a  very  con- 
siderable and  real  deterioration  in  the  American 
character.  I  do  not  think  it  is  a  permanent'  de- 
terioration. I  think  that  we  shall  recover  and 
become  heartily  ashamed  of  our  lapse  from  vi- 



rile  manliness.  But  there  has  been  a  distinct 
degeneracy  in  the  moral  fiber  of  our  people  owing 
to  this  peace  propaganda,  a  distinct  increase  in 
moral  flabbiness,  a  distinct  increase  in  hysteria 
and  sentimental  untruth  fulness. 

Not  once  in  a  thousand  times  is  it  possible  to 
achieve  anything  worth  achieving  except  by  la- 
bor, by  effort,  by  serious  purpose  and  by  the 
willingness  to  run  risk.  The  persons  who  seek 
to  persuade  our  people  that  by  doing  nothing,  by 
passing  resolutions  that  cost  nothing,  and  by 
writing  eloquent  messages  and  articles  that  mean 
nothing,  and  by  complacently  applauding  elocu- 
tion that  means  less  than  nothing,  some  service  is 
thereby  rendered  to  humanity,  are  not  only  ren- 
dering no  such  service,  but  are  weakening  the 
spring  of  national  character.  This  applies  to  the 
publicists  and  politicians  who  write  messages  and 
articles  and  make  speeches  of  this  kind;  it  applies 
to  the  newspaper  editors  and  magazine  writers 
who  applaud  such  utterances;  and  most  of  all  it 
applies  to  those  of  our  people  who  insist  upon  the 
passage  of  treaties  that  cannot  and  will  not  be  en- 
forced, while  they  also  inveigh  against  prepar- 
edness, and  shudder  at  action  on  behalf  of  our 
own  rights. 

Let  no  man  propose  a  treaty  unless  he  has  re- 
duced it  to  concrete  terms;  has  proposed  it  in 
these  concrete  terms  to  his  fellows,  and  has  de- 



termined  whether,  when  thus  made  concrete,  it 
ought  to  be  and  will  be  observed.  Take  a  few  il- 
lustrative cases.  The  ultra-pacifist  movement, 
the  peace-at-any-price  movement,  has  seemingly 
been  as  strong  on  the  Pacific  slope  as  on  the  At- 
lantic seaboard  and  in  the  interior.  Congress- 
men and  editors  have  made  speeches  and  written 
articles  in  which  they  have  advocated  disar- 
mament, and  have  demanded  treaties  by  which 
the  United  States  would  agree  to  arbitrate  every- 
thing. Worthy  people,  silly  people,  have  en- 
couraged schoolboys  solemnly  to  debate  such 

Now  let  these  congressmen  and  editors  face 
facts  and  be  frank  and  truthful.  When  they  ap- 
plaud the  passage  of  the  thirty  all-inclusive  ar- 
bitration-commission treaties  that  the  Adminis- 
tration has  passed  during  the  last  year  or  so, 
do  they  mean  that  they  wish,  if  the  Japanese  take 
Magdalena  Bay  or  the  Germans  St.  Thomas,  to 
discuss  the  matter  through  a  commission  for  a 
year  without  taking  any  action?  Do  they  mean 
that  when  American  women  are  raped  in  Mexico 
or  American  men  murdered  in  our  own  territory 
by  Mexicans  firing  across  the  line,  or  when  the 
American  flag  is  insulted  and  dishonored,  we 
shall  appoint  a  commission  to  discuss  the  matter 
for  a  year  before  taking  action?  Do  they  mean 
that  if  a  French  or  English  submarine  sinks  a 



ship  crowded  with  non-combatants,  as  the  Ger- 
mans sank  the  Lusitania,  and  if  American 
women  and  children  are  again  drowned  whole- 
sale on  the  high  seas,  we  shall  appoint  a  com- 
mission to  talk  about  it  for  a  year  and  bind  our- 
selves to  take  no  action  prior  to  that  time? 

If  they  do  mean  these  things,  if  our  people 
mean  these  things,  then  let  them  honestly  say  so. 
FYom  my  standpoint  such  action  would  be  incon- 
ceivably base  and  cowardly.  Nevertheless,  it  is 
at  least  possible  to  accept  the  mental  integrity 
of  the  man  taking  it,  if  he  announces  from  the 
beginning  that  such  is  his  intention.  But  it  is 
absolutely  and  grossly  improper  to  take  it  unless 
the  concrete  case  to  which  the  general  principle 
is  to  apply  is  thus  set  nakedly  forth  at  the  outset 
and  we  agree  to  abide  by  action  in  such  concrete 

Again,  there  are  Pacific  slope  editors  and  pub- 
lic men  who  have  excitedly  applauded  that  phase 
of  the  peace-at-any-price  propaganda  in  accord- 
ance with  which  it  is  proposed  that  we  shall  bind 
ourselves  to  arbitrate  all  questions,  including 
those  of  national  honor  and  vital  national  in- 
terest. The  movement  has  been  strong  even  in 
California.  Now,  do  these  public  men  and  edi- 
tors who  champion  this  form  of  peace  movement 
in  California,  Oregon  and  Washington  mean 
that  we  shall  in  good  faith  submit  to  outsiders 



for  arbitration  the  question  whether  or  not  there 
shall  be  an  unlimited  immigration  of  Asiatics 
to  our  shores?  Do  they  mean  that  a  court  con- 
taining judges  from  Japan,  Siam,  China,  Vene- 
zuela, Colombia  and  Ecuador,  as  well  as  from 
the  European  powers,  shall  say  whether  or  not 
we  have  a  right  to  decide  what  immigrants  shall 
come  to  our  shores  and  here  establish  citizen- 
ship ? 

The  Californian  who  does  not  believe  in  arbi- 
trating the  question  whether  there  shall  be  such 
unlimited  immigration  of  Asiatics  to  California 
is  guilty  of  the  grossest  bad  faith  when  he  cham- 
pions or  fails  to  condemn  such  proposals,  when 
he  votes  for  or  approves  of  the  thirty-odd  peace- 
commission  treaties  recently  passed  by  the  pres- 
ent Administration  and  the  all-inclusive  arbitra- 
tion treaties  proposed  by  the  preceding  Adminis- 
tration. I  hold  that  to  arbitrate  the  question 
whether  we  should  or  should  not  allow  the  un- 
limited immigration  of  Asiatics  to  our  shores 
would  be  a  dreadful  wrong.  It  is  an  almost 
equally  serious  wrong  to  conclude  a  treaty  spe- 
cifically binding  us  to  accept  such  arbitration, 
and  then  to  repudiate  the  treaty. 

All  this  applies  to  the  movement  for  inaugu- 
rating at  this  time  a  "World  League  for  Peace," 
of  which  the  decrees  are  to  be  backed  by  force. 
Before  we  make  such  a  League  for  the  future, 



let  us  in  the  present  live  up  to  our  engagements 
under  The  Hague  Conventions  and  without  de- 
lay protest  on  behalf  of  Belgium.  If  we  are  not 
willing  to  undergo  the  modest  risk  implied  in 
thus  keeping  the  promise  we  have  already  made, 
then  for  heaven's  sake  let  us  avoid  the  hypocrisy 
of  proposing  a  new  world  league,  under  which 
we  would  guarantee  to  send  armies  over  to  co- 
erce great  military  powers  which  decline  to  abide 
by  the  decisions  of  an  arbitral  court.  Above  all, 
let  us  avoid  the  infinite  folly,  the  discreditable 
folly,  of  agitating  for  such  an  agreement  until 
we  have  a  naval  and  military  force  sufficient  to 
entitle  us  to  speak  with  the  voice  of  authority 
when  fronted  with  great  military  nations  in  in- 
ternational matters.  Let  us  not  live  in  a  realm 
of  childish  make-believe.  Let  us  not  make  new 
and  large  promises  in  a  spirit  of  grandiloquent 
and  elocutionary  disregard  of  facts  unless  and 
until  we  are  willing  by  deeds  to  make  good  the 
promises  we  have  already  made  but  have  re- 
frained from  executing;  until  we  are  willing  to 
demand  of  our  government  that  it  live  up  to  The 
Hague  Conventions,  and,  above  all,  that  it  de- 
fend our  own  rights. 

Now,  the  fact  that  these  male  and  female  pro- 
fessional peace  enthusiasts  who  have  screamed 
so  busily  for  peace  during  the  past  year  have  been 
afraid  to  make  any  concrete  protest  against 

1 80 


wrong  is  doubtless  due  primarily  to  sheer  fear 
on  their  part.  They  were  afraid  of  the  trouble 
and  effort  implied  in  acting  about  Mexico. 
Above  all,  they  are  afraid  of  Germany.  Those 
of  them  who  are  politicians  are  afraid  of  the 
German- American  vote;  for  these  professional 
pacifists  have  no  sense  of  national  honor  and 
are  great  encouragers  of  hyphenated  American- 
ism. But  in  addition  they  are  terrorized,  they 
are  cowed,  by  the  ruthless  spirit  of  German  mili- 
tarism. The  Berlin  Lokal  Anzeiger  spoke  as 
follows  after  the  sinking  of  the  Lusitania: 

We  do  not  wish  to  gain  the  love  of  the 
Americans,  but  we  desire  to  be  respected 
by  them.  The  loss  of  the  Lusitania  will 
earn  that  respect  for  us  more  than  a  hun- 
dred battles  won  on  land. 

Of  course,  when  the  Lokal  Anzeiger  spoke  of 
inspiring  "respect"  in  America,  what  it  really 
meant  was  that  it  would  inspire  fear.  The  mur- 
der of  women  and  children  does  not  inspire  re- 
spect; but,  unfortunately,  it  may  inspire  fear. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  think  it  did  inspire  fear 
among  our  pacifists.  There  are  plenty  of  Amer- 
icans like  myself  who  immensely  admire  the  ef- 
ficiency of  the  Germans  in  industry  and  in  war, 
the  efficiency  with  which  in  this  war  they  have 
subordinated  the  whole  social  and  industrial  ac- 



tivity  of  the  state  to  the  successful  prosecution 
of  the  war,  and  who  greatly  admire  the  German 
people,  and  regard  the  German  strain  as  one  of 
the  best  and  strongest  strains  in  our  composite 
American  blood;  but  who  feel  that  the  German 
Government,  the  German  governing  class  has  in 
this  war  shown  such  ruthless  and  domineering 
disregard  for  the  rights  of  others  as  to  demand 
emphatic  and  resolute  action  (not  merely  words 
unbacked  by  action)  on  our  part.  Unfortu- 
nately, this  ruthless  and  brutal  efficiency  has,  as 
regards  many  men  of  the  pacifist  type,  achieved 
precisely  the  purpose  it  was  intended  to  achieve. 
As  part  of  her  program,  Germany  has  counted 
on  the  effect  of  terrorism  upon  all  men  of  soft 
nature.  The  sinking  of  the  Lusitania  was  in- 
tended primarily  as  terrorism;  just  as  the  use 
of  poison  gas  in  the  trenches  (a  use  defensible 
only  if  one  also  defends  the  poisoning  of  wells 
and  the  torture  of  prisoners)  was  intended  as 
terrorism.  The  object — terrorization — has  not 
been  achieved  as  regards  the  fighting  men  of 
England,  France,  Belgium,  Russia,  Italy  and 
Servia.  But  it  has  had  a  distinct  effect  in 
cowing  timid  persons  everywhere.  I  do  not  be- 
lieve it  would  have  any  effect  in  cowing  the  bulk 
of  our  people  if  our  people  could  be  waked  up 
to  what  has  happened;  but  I  have  no  question 
that  it  has  had  a  very  great  effect  in  cowing  that 



noisy  section  of  our  people  which  has  talked  loud- 
est about  peace  at  any  price.  The  people  who 
say  of  the  present  Administration  that  "at  any 
rate,  it  has  kept  us  out  of  war  with  Mexico 
or  Germany ;"  the  people  who  say  that  we  ought 
not  to  act  about  the  Lusitania;  the  people  who 
say  we  ought  not  to  have  acted  on  behalf  of  Bel- 
gium, include  in  their  ranks  all  of  the  per- 
sons who  are  cowed  by  Germany,  who  are 
afraid  of  what  Germany  would  do  if  we  stood  up 
for  our  own  rights  or  for  the  rights  of  other  and 
weaker  peoples.  Recently,  in  certain  circles, 
some  popularity  has  been  achieved  by  a  song  en- 
titled "I  Didn't  Raise  My  Boy  To  Be  a  Soldier" 
— a  song  which  ought  always  to  be  sung  with  a 
companion  piece  entitled  "I  Didn't  Raise  My  Girl 
To  Be  a  Mother."  The  two  would  stand  on  pre- 
cisely the  same  moral  level.  This  hymn,  in  con- 
demnation of  courage,  has  been  sung  in  music 
halls,  and  even  in  schools,  with  applause.  Think 
of  such  a  song  being  sung  by  or  of  the  mothers, 
sisters  and  wives  of  the  men  who  fought  under 
Washington  in  the  Revolution,  or  of  the  men 
who  fought  under  Grant  and  Lee  in  the  Civil 
War!  Those  who  applaud  such  a  song  are 
wholly  out  of  place  at  any  patriotic  celebration 
on  Decoration  Day  or  the  Fourth  of  July;  and 
most  assuredly  men  of  this  abject  type  will  be 
easily  affected  by  terrorism. 



The  sinking  of  the  Lusitania,  the  destruction 
of  Louvain,  the  shooting  of  the  Belgians  who 
rallied  to  the  defence  of  their  flag  precisely  as 
the  men  of  Lexington  and  Bunker  Hill  once  ral- 
lied to  the  defence  of  theirs,  the  merciless  thor- 
oughness of  the  exploitation  of  the  civilian  popu- 
lation of  Northern  France  and  Belgium,  the  ut- 
ter ruthlessness  shown  in  dealing  not  only  with 
men  but  with  women  and  children — all  this  has 
undoubtedly  cowed  and  terrorized  the  average 
American  pacifist,  the  average  peace-at-any- 
price  man  in  the  United  States.  It  has  cowed 
the  type  of  man  who  cheers  such  a  song  as  "I 
Didn't  Raise  My  Boy  To  Be  a  Soldier."  It  has 
terrorized  the  type  of  man  who  makes  speeches 
and  writes  editorials  or  newspaper  or  magazine 
articles  on  behalf  of  disarmament,  on  behalf  of 
universal  arbitration,  and  against  the  Monroe 
Doctrine.  There  is  a  Dr.  Jeykll  and  Mr.  Hyde 
in  nations  as  in  individuals ;  and  sheer  terrorism 
is  often  found  working  hand-in-hand  with  flabby 
and  timid  international  pacifism  for  the  undo- 
ing of  righteousness  and  for  the  deification  of 
the  most  brutal  form  of  successful  militarism. 

Mrs.  Wharton  has  sent  me  the  following  Ger- 
man poem  on  the  sinking  of  the  Lusitania,  with 
her  translation: 




(Translated  from  the  German.)* 

The  swift  sea  sucks  her  death-shriek  under 
As  the  great  ship  reels  and  leaps  asunder. 
Crammed   taffrail-high   with  her   murderous 

Like  a  straw  on  the  tide  she  whirls  to  her 


A  warship  she,  though  she  lacked  its  coat, 

And  lustful  for  lives  as  none  afloat, 

A    warship,    and    one    of    the    foe's    best 

Not  penned  with  her  rusting  harbor-shirk- 


Now  the   Flanders   guns  lack  their  daily 


And  shipper  and  buyer  are  sick  with  dread, 
For  neutral  as  Uncle  Sam  may  be 
Your  surest  neutral's  the  deep  green  sea. 

Just  one  ship  sunk,  with  lives  and  shell, 
And  thousands  of  German  gray-coats  well  ! 
And  for  each  of  her  gray-coats,  German 

Would  have  sunk  ten  ships  with  all  their 


*  Poem  reprinted  by  courtesy  of  N.  Y.  Herald. 



Yea,  ten  such  ships  are  a  paltry  fine 
For  one  good  life  in  our  fighting  line. 
Let  England  ponder  the  crimson  text: 


This  is  not  a  pleasant  poem.  I  do  not  envy 
the  person  who  could  write  with  this  exultation 
of  the  death  of  women  and  children.  It  is  a 
manifestation  of  the  policy  of  blood  and  iron 
which  should  be  pondered  carefully  by  those 
who,  with  voices  of  quivering  timidity,  are  ad- 
vocating our  submission  to  such  policies.  Be  it 
remembered,  moreover,  that  bad  though  it  is  to 
do  such  a  deed,  it  is  even  more  contemptible  to 
submit  to  it.  The  policy  of  milk  and  water  is 
an  even  worse  policy  than  the  policy  of  blood 
and  iron.  To  sink  a  hundred  American  men, 
women  and  children  on  the  Lusitc&nia,  in  other 
words,  to  murder  them,  was  an  evil  thing;  but 
it  was  not  quite  as  evil  and  it  was  nothing  like  as 
contemptible  as  it  was  for  this  nation  to  rest  sat- 
isfied with  governmental  notes  of  protest  couched 
in  elegant  English,  and  with  vaguely  implied 
threats  which  were  not  carried  out.  When  a 
man  has  warned  another  man  not  to  slap  his 
wife's  face,  and  the  other  man  does  it,  the  gentle- 
man who  has  given  the  warning  does  not  meet 



the  situation  by  treating  elocution  as  a  substitute 
for  action. 

Mr.  Bryan  resigns  the  foremost  position  in  the 
American  Cabinet  and  immediately  addresses  a 
large  meeting  of  Germans,  where  he  was  very 
properly  received  with  uproarious  applause  as 
a  faithful  servant  of  the  present  German  govern- 
ment, as  a  man  who,  however  amiable  his  inten- 
tions, had  in  actual  fact  stood  against  the  honor 
and  interest  of  America.  Now,  if  Mr.  Bryan 
were  a  German,  the  German  government  would 
not  for  one  moment  permit  him  to  make  the  kind 
of  address  against  Germany  that  the  Germans 
applauded  him  for  making  against  his  own  coun- 
try and  ours.  The  success  of  the  German  policy 
of  blood-and-iron  largely  depends  upon  their  pos- 
sible rivals  and  opponents  adopting  a  policy  of 
milk-and-water.  The  blood-and-iron  statesman 
of  one  nation  finds  in  the  milk-and-water  states- 
man of  another  nation  the  man  predestined 
through  the  ages  to  be  his  ally  and  his  tool. 

A  number  of  persons,  including  especially  the 
ultra-pacifists,  have  strongly  objected  to  the 
statement  that  this  country  should  have  acted  on 
behalf  of  Belgium,  and  have  done  this  on  the 
ground  that  we  have  declared  as  a  nation  that  we 
did  not  intend  to  be  drawn  into  "entangling  alli- 
ances" in  Europe.  Yet  the  same  persons  now 
advocate  our  going  into  a  league  to  enforce  the 



results  of  universal  arbitration,  which,  of  course, 
represents  the  "entangling"  of  ourselves  in  a  for- 
eign alliance  on  the  largest  possible  scale.  It  also 
represents  an  agreement  on  our  part  to  wage  of- 
fensive war  on  behalf  of  others,  although  many 
of  the  persons  favoring  such  an  agreement  are 
opposed  to  the  very  moderate  policy  of  making  us 
fit  to  protect  our  own  rights  in  defensive  war.  It 
is  idle  to  make  promises  on  behalf  of  a  movement 
for  world  peace  unless  we  intend  to  live  up  to 
them.  If  so,  the  first  step  is  to  live  up  to  the 
promises  we  have  already  made,  and  not  to  try 
to  sneak  out  of  them  on  the  ground  that  to  ful- 
fill them  means  to  abandon  our  "policy  of  re- 
fusal to  be  entangled  in  foreign  alliances." 

This  attitude  of  the  ultra-pacifists  is  merely 
another  illustration  of  the  necessity  of  subordi- 
nating elocution  in  advocacy  of  universal  world 
peace  to  action  (not  merely  elocution)  to  meet 
more  immediate  and  vital  needs.  It  is  utterly 
useless  to  advocate  our  entering  into  such  a  pro- 
posed league  until  we  have  prepared  in  military 
fashion  to  make  our  action  effective  and  until 
we  have  seriously  resolved  to  live  up  to  our 
promises — and,  as  a  consequence,  to  make  but 
few  promises.  Therefore,  at  this  moment  all 
agitation  for  such  a  league  merely  offers  an  op- 
portunity for  the  people  who  want  to  talk  and 
to  do  nothing  else.  It  gives  them  the  chance  to 

1 88 


avoid  the  performance  of  immediate  duty  by 
empty  elocution  for  something  which  is  in  the 
remote  future  and  which  cannot  possibly  be 
achieved  until  the  immediate  duty  has  been  effec- 
tively performed.  In  my  book,  "America  and 
the  World  War,"  I  have  outlined  the  only  pos- 
sibly feasible  plan  for  securing  world  peace  that 
has  yet  been  propounded.  But  it  is  waste  of  time 
to  advocate  such  a  plan  until  we  have  adopted 
and  put  into  effect  a  policy  of  national  military 
preparedness,  and  until  we  take  the  trouble  to 
find  out  what  treaties — promises — mean,  and  to 
refuse  to  make  them  unless  they  are  to  be  kept. 
To  enter  into  the  proposed  "League  of  Peace" 
would  mean  that  we  promised,  under  certain  con- 
ditions, to  undertake  offensive  war  on  behalf  of 
others.  It  would  be  ludicrous  to  make  such  a 
promise  until  we  have  shown  that  we  are  willing 
to  undertake  defensive  war  on  behalf  of  our- 

In  1814,  a  little  over  a  century  ago,  in  the 
course  of  the  War  of  1812,  a  small  British  army 
landed  in  Chesapeake  Bay.  It  defeated  twice  its 
number  of  "free-born  American  citizens,"  with- 
out training  and  discipline,  who  "had  leaped  to 
arms,"  as  Mr.  Bryan  says,  or  become  "an  armed 
citizenry,"  as  Mr.  Wilson  puts  it.  It  then  burned 
the  public  buildings  at  Washington.  The  "armed 
citizenry" — upon  whose  potentiality  President 



Wilson  relied  as  an  excuse  for  signal  failure  to 
make  any  preparation  to  do  our  duty  by  adequate 
preparation  in  view  of  the  terrible  world  war 
now  going  on  and  of  the  situation  in  Mexico — 
fled  with  such  unanimity  and  rapidity  that  only 
a  score  or  so  lost  their  lives.  Thereupon  the  re- 
mainder, together  with  all  the  American  editors 
and  public  men  who  for  years  had  been  scream- 
ing for  peace  and  announcing  that  there  was  no 
need  of  preparing  against  war,  instead  of  ex- 
pressing their  hearty  shame  and  repentance  for 
the  national  failure  to  prepare,  became  hyster- 
ical in  attacking — with  words  only — the  hostile 
army  for  having  burned  Washington.  The 
British  army  a  century  ago  was  as  profoundly 
indifferent  to  this  attack  as  the  war  lords  of  Ger- 
many to-day  are  to  our  prattle  about  the  Lusi- 
tania  or  the  resolutions  of  our  peace  societies, 
and  the  boasts  of  our  political  orators  on  the 
Fourth  of  July.  Such  indifference  was,  and  is, 
entirely  justifiable.  It  was  not  a  nice  thing  to 
burn  the  public  buildings  of  Washington;  but  it 
was  an  infinitely  worse  thing  for  this  country, 
after  two  years  of  war,  to  be  utterly  unable  to 
protect  its  capital.  It  was  not  a  nice  thing  to 
kill  our  women  and  children  on  the  Lusitania; 
but  it  was  an  even  meaner  and  more  contemptible 
thing  for  us  to  fail  to  act  with  instant  decision 
thereon — and  had  we  so  acted  in  the  case  of  the 



Gul flight,  a  few  days  previously,  the  Lusitania 
would  never  have  been  sunk. 

Every  right-minded  man  utterly  despises  a 
coward  in  private  life.  Cowardice  is  the  un- 
pardonable sin  in  a  man.  A  corrupt  man  can 
be  reformed.  Many  a  corrupt  man,  both  in  poli- 
tics and  business,  has  been  reformed  within  the 
past  score  of  years,  has  realized  the  evils  of  cor- 
ruption and  is  now  a  first-class  citizen.  In  the 
same  way  a  coward  who  appreciates  that  coward- 
ice is  a  sin,  an  unpardonable  sin  if  persevered  in, 
may  train  himself  so  as,  first  to  act  like  a  brave 
man,  and  then  finally  to  feel  like  and  therefore  to 
be  a  brave  man.  But  the  coward  who  excuses  his 
cowardice,  who  tries  to  cloak  it  behind  lofty 
words,  who  perseveres  in  it,  and  does  not  appre- 
ciate his  own  infamy,  is  beyond  all  hope.  The 
peace-at-any-price  people,  the  universal  and  all- 
inclusive  arbitration  people,  and  most  of  the  men 
and  women  who  have  taken  the  lead  in  the  paci- 
fist movement  in  this  country  during  the  last  five 
or  ten  years,  are  preaching  international  cow- 

Sometimes  these  professional  pacifists  preach 
such  cowardice  openly.  At  other  times  they 
preach  the  utter  flabbiness  and  feebleness,  moral 
and  physical,  which  inevitably  breeds  cowardice. 
It  is  a  dreadful  thing  to  think  that  in  the  event 
of  war  brave  men  would  have  to  shed  their 



blood ;  it  is  a  worse  thing  to  think  that  these  fee- 
ble folk  would  purchase  their  own  ignoble  safety 
by  the  blood  of  others.  The  men  and  women 
guilty  of  such  preaching  and  such  practice  are 
thoroughly  bad  citizens.  The  worst  of  them,  of 
course,  are  those  in  the  colleges,  and  those  who 
profess  to  speak  for  the  colleges;  for  to  them 
much  has  been  given  and  from  them  much  should 
be  expected.  The  college  boys  who  adopt  the 
professional  pacifist  views,  who  make  peace 
leagues  and  preach  the  doctrines  of  international 
cowardice,  are  unfitting  themselves  for  any  ca- 
reer more  manly  than  that  of  a  nursemaid.  A 
grown-up  of  the  professional  pacifist  type  is  not 
an  impressive  figure ;  but  the  college  boy  who  de- 
liberately elects  to  be  a  "sissy"  should  be  replaced 
in  the  nursery  and  spanked. 

It  is  to  be  regretted  that  we  do  not  learn  his- 
tory aright.  Allusion  has  been  made  above  to 
the  War  of  1812.  Had  Washington  or  men  who 
carried  out  Washington's  policy  been  in  charge 
of  our  government  during  the  first  fifteen  years 
of  the  nineteenth  century,  there  would  probably 
have  been  no  war  with  Great  Britain  in  1812, 
or  if  there  had  been  we  would  have  been  com- 
pletely and  overwhelmingly  successful.  But  the 
great  opponent  of  Washington's  ideals,  Thomas 
Jefferson,  gave  the  tone  to  our  governmental  pol- 
icies during  that  time.  He  announced  that  his 



"passion  was  peace" — not  as  strong  an  expres- 
sion as  "being  too  proud  to  fight,"  but  sufficiently 
noxious.  He  and  his  followers  declined  to  pre- 
pare a  regular  army  and  refused  to  upbuild  the 
Navy.  The  very  Congress  that  declared  war  on 
Great  Britain  declined  to  increase  our  Navy.  Yet 
if  at  that  time  we  had  had  an  efficient  navy  of 
twenty  battleships  or  an  efficient  mobile  regular 
army  of  twenty  thousand  men,  the  war  would 
not  have  taken  place  at  all  or  else  it  would  have 
ended  in  complete  and  sweeping  victory  the  sum- 
mer it  was  declared. 

We  trusted,  however,  to  the  "armed  citizenry" 
of  whom  Mr.  Wilson  speaks  and  to  the  voluntary 
efforts  of  "the  million  men  who  spring  to  arms 
between  dawn  and  sunset,"  described  in  Mr. 
Bryan's  oratory.  We  trusted  to  the  few  frigates 
prepared  by  the  men  of  Washington's  school  be- 
fore the  Jeffersonians  came  to  power.  These 
frigates  did  their  duty  well  and  but  for  them  it 
is  possible  that  our  country  would  have  broken 
in  pieces  under  the  intolerable  shame  of  our  fail- 
ure on  land.  Nevertheless,  our  small  cruisers 
could  produce  only  a  moral  and  not  a  material 
effect  upon  the  war.  On  land  for  two  years  we 
were  unable  to  do  anything  effective  at  all. 
When  the  war  had  begun,  it  was  too  late  to  make 
efficient  preparations;  and  in  any  event  we  did 
not  try.  We  raised  a  body  of  over  a  hundred 



thousand  militiamen  under  the  volunteer  system. 
These  militiamen  were  gathered  in  camps  where 
they  sickened  of  various  diseases;  but  we  were 
never  able  to  get  them  against  the  foe  in  any 
numbers,  except  on  one  or  two  occasions,  such  as 
at  Bladensburg.  Mind  you,  they  were  naturally 
good  enough  men.  The  individuals  who  ran  at 
Bladensburg  were  the  sons  of  the  men  of  York- 
town,  the  fathers  of  the  men  of  Gettysburg. 
What  they  needed  was  preparation  by  long  train- 
ing in  advance;  training  in  the  field,  not  merely 
in  an  armory  or  on  a  drill  ground. 

The  same  thing  was  true  of  our  Civil  War. 
In  1 86 1  both  of  the  contending  armies  at  Bull 
Run  could  have  been  beaten  with  ease  by  a  Euro- 
pean army  of  regulars  half  the  size  of  either. 
In  1863  there  was  not  an  army  in  Europe  which 
could  have  contended  on  equal  terms  with  either 
of  the  armies  that  fought  at  Gettysburg.  In 
1814,  after  two  years  of  exertion,  Brown,  Scott, 
and  a  few  other  officers  like  them  on  the  northern 
frontier,  developed  a  tiny  army  as  good  as  could 
be  found  anywhere,  and  Andrew  Jackson,  a  real 
military  genius,  performed  the  same  feat  for  the 
few  thousand  Tennesseeans  and  Louisianians 
whom  he  commanded  at  New  Orleans. 

But  the  War  of  1812  was  not  a  victorious  war 
for  us.  At  best  it  is  possible  to  call  it  a  draw. 
It  was  a  thoroughly  discreditable  war  from  the 



standpoint  of  our  people  as  a  whole.  The  land 
officers  I  have  named  above,  and  a  few  thousand 
troops,  not  more  than  ten  thousand  all  told,  who 
served  under  them,  did  well.  So  did  the  officers 
and  crews  of  our  tiny  navy  and  the  shipwrights 
who  built  the  ships.  These  men,  and  a  very  few 
others,  deserved  the  highest  credit.  We  of  to- 
day owe  them  much.  It  is  only  because  of  their 
existence  that  Americans  can  think  of  the  War 
of  1812  without  unmixed  shame.  But  the  bulk 
of  our  people,  and  the  politicians,  from  the 
President  down,  who  represented  our  people, 
made  a  wretched  showing  in  that  war;  and  be- 
cause of  this  showing  the  Union  came  very  near 
splitting  up.  If  history  were  rightly  taught,  this 
fact  would  be  brought  out  clearly  in  our  schools ; 
and  the  pacifists,  the  peace-at-any-price  men,  the 
men  who  shirk  preparedness  and  who  chatter 
about  the  efficacy  of  salvation  to  be  secured  by 
diluted  moral  mush,  would  not  have  the  clear 
field  they  now  have. 

Men  cannot  and  will  not  fight  well  unless  they 
are  physically  prepared ;  and  they  cannot  and  will 
not  fight  if,  through  the  generations,  they  elabo- 
rately unfit  themselves  by  weakening  their  own 
moral  fiber.  China  furnishes  the  greatest  exam- 
ple, and  a  living  and  contemporary  example.  Mr. 
Bryan  recently  announced  that  instead  of  war, 
which  he  regarded  as  outworn,  he  wished  to  try 



"persuasion."  Evidently  he  was  under  the  im- 
pression that  persuasion  was  something  new  in 
the  annals  of  history.  Let  Mr.  Bryan  and  his 
fellow  pacifists  read  history;  and,  if  they  won't 
read  history,  let  them  at  least  look  at  affairs  that 
are  contemporary.  A  sillier  falsehood  has  never 
been  uttered  than  the  falsehood  that  "war  settles 
nothing."  War  settled  the  independence  of  this 
country;  war  settled  the  question  of  union,  and 
war  settled  the  question  of  slavery.  Pacifists 
pretend  to  speak  in  the  interests  of  morality.  It 
is  a  poor  thing  for  professed  moralists  to  rest 
their  case  on  a  falsehood,  which  they  must  know 
to  be  a  falsehood.  Many  of  the  greatest  events 
of  history  have  been  settled  by  war.  Many  of 
the  greatest  advances  in  humanity  have  been  due 
to  successful  wars  for  righteousness. 

Christianity  is  not  the  creed  of  Asia  and  Af- 
rica at  this  moment  solely  because  the  seventh 
century  Christians  of  Asia  and  Africa,  in  addi- 
tion to  being  rent  asunder  among  themselves  by 
bitter  sectarian  animosities — and  sectarian  in- 
tolerance and  animosity  stand  for  most  that  is 
evil  in  Christianity — had  trained  themselves  not 
to  fight,  whereas  the  Moslems  were  trained  to 
fight.  Christianity  was  saved  in  Europe  solely 
because  the  peoples  of  Europe  fought.  If  the 
peoples  of  Europe  in  the  seventh  and  eighth  cen- 
turies, and  on  up  to  and  including  the  seven- 



teenth  century,  had  not  possessed  a  military 
equality  with,  and  gradually  a  growing  superior- 
ity over,  the  Mohammedans  who  invaded  Europe, 
Europe  would  at  this  moment  be  Mohammedan, 
and  the  Christian  religion  would  be  extermi- 
nated. Wherever  the  Mohammedans  have  had 
complete  sway,  wherever  the  Christians  have 
been  unable  to  resist  them  by  the  sword,  Christi- 
anity has  ultimately  disappeared.  From  the  ham- 
mer of  Charles  Martel  to  the  sword  of  Sobieski, 
Christianity  owed  its  safety  in  Europe  to  the 
fact  that  it  was  able  to  show  that  it  could  and 
would  fight  as  well  as  the  Mohammedan  ag- 

China  is  the  great  living  example  of  unpre- 
paredness,  of  pacifism,  of  the  peace-at-any- 
price  spirit,  of  the  effort  to  preserve  territory 
and  national  self-respect  by  "persuasion"  and 
not  by  the  sword.  In  consequence  the  English, 
the  French,  the  Russians,  the  Japanese,  control 
one-half  of  the  territory  of  China,  and  the  re- 
maining territory,  under  the  pressure  of  Japan, 
is  at  this  moment  losing  all  right  to  be  considered 
an  independent  and  self-respecting  people.  Well- 
meaning  persons  who  treat  peace  pageants,  peace 
parades,  peace  conferences  and  minor  movements 
of  similar  nature  as  of  consequence,  are  guilty 
of  an  error  which  makes  their  conduct  foolish. 
Those  of  them  who  champion  the  exaltation  of 



peace  above  righteousness  and  the  abandonment 
of  national  power  of  self-defence — without 
which  there  never  has  been  and  never  will  be 
either  national  heroism  or  national  manliness — 
will  do  well  to  study  China. 

It  is  mere  gong-beating,  it  is  the  mere  sound- 
ing of  tom-toms  and  rattles,  for  our  people  to 
get  together  in  conference  at  the  present  time 
and  declare  for  universal  peace  and  announce 
that  they  wish  a  world  league  by  which  they  will 
agree  to  arbitrate  everything  and  enforce  the  re- 
sult by  arms.  Of  course  in  no  event  should  we 
agree  to  arbitrate  everything.  But  the  prime 
point  to  be  considered  at  the  moment  is  that  un- 
til we  show  that  we  possess  force,  that  we  are 
willing  to  use  it  when  necessary,  and  that  we 
make  no  promises  save  those  that  ought  to  be  and 
will  be  carried  out,  we  shall  be  utterly  useless  to 
do  anything  for  righteousness,  whether  through 
these  leagues  or  in  any  other  fashion. 

Every  peace  body,  whether  religious  or  hu- 
manitarian, philosophic  or  political,  and  all  ad- 
vocates of  peace,  whether  in  public  or  private 
life,  work  nothing  but  mischief,  and,  save  in  so 
far  as  mere  silliness  prevents  it,  very  serious  mis- 
chief, unless  they  put  righteousness  first  and 
peace  next.  Every  league  that  calls  itself  a 
Peace  League  is  championing  immorality  unless 
it  clearly  and  explicitly  recognizes  the  duty  of 



putting  righteousness  before  peace  and  of  being 
prepared  and  ready  to  enforce  righteousness  by 
war  if  necessary;  and  it  is  idle  to  promise  to 
wage  offensive  war  on  behalf  of  others  until  we 
have  shown  that  we  are  able  and  willing  to  wage 
defensive  war  on  behalf  of  ourselves.  The  man 
who  fears  death  more  than  dishonor,  more  than 
failure  to  perform  duty,  is  a  poor  citizen;  and 
the  nation  that  regards  war  as  the  worst  of  all 
evils  and  the  avoidance  of  war  as  the  highest 
good  is  a  wretched  and  contemptible  nation,  and 
it  is  well  that  it  should  vanish  from  the  face  of 
the  earth. 

If  our  people  really  believed  what  the  pacifists 
and  the  German- fearing  politicians  advocate,  if 
they  really  feared  war  above  anything  else  and 
really  had  sunk  to  the  Chinese  level — from  which 
the  best  and  bravest  and  most  honorable  China- 
men are  now  striving  to  lift  their  people — then 
it  would  be  utterly  hopeless  to  help  the  United 
States.  In  such  case,  the  best  thing  that  could 
befall  it  would  be  to  have  the  Germans,  or  the 
Japanese,  or  some  other  people  that  still  retains 
virility,  come  over  here  to  rule  and  oppress  a  na- 
tion of  feeble  pacifists,  unfit  to  be  anything  but 
hewers  of  wood  and  drawers  of  water  for  their 

But  I  do  not  for  one  moment  admit  that  the 
American  people  has  sunk  or  will  sink  to  such  a 



level.  We  are  foolish  and  shortsighted  and  we 
permit  the  prattlers  to  misrepresent  us.  But  at 
bottom  the  heart  of  this  people  is  sound.  We 
celebrate  Decoration  Day  and  Independence  Day 
on  the  3Oth  of  May  and  the  4th  of  July.  We  be- 
lieve in  the  men  of  the  Revolution,  in  the  men 
of  the  Civil  War  and  in  the  women  who  did 
"raise  their  sons  to  be  soldiers"  for  the  right. 
We  know  that  in  itself  war  is  neither  moral  nor 
immoral,  that  the  test  of  the  righteousness  of 
war  is  the  object  and  purpose  for  which  it  is 
waged.  Therefore,  it  is  worth  while  for  our 
people  seriously  to  consider  the  problems  ahead 
of  them;  and  the  first  problem  is  the  problem  of 

The  prime  and  all-important  lesson  to  learn 
is  that  while  preparedness  will  not  guarantee  a 
nation  against  war,  unpreparedness  eventually 
insures  not  merely  war,  but  utter  disaster.  Take 
what  has  happened  in  the  last  twelve  months  at 
home  and  abroad.  Preparedness  has  saved 
France  from  the  unspeakable  shame  that  befell 
it  in  1870.  Every  Frenchman  holds  his  head 
higher  now  than  any  Frenchman  has  held  it  in 
forty-five  years.  England  suffers  because  she 
has  not  prepared.  If  her  army  had  been  pre- 
pared as  Lord  Roberts  wished  it  to  be  prepared, 
if  she  had  had  universal  military  service  on  the 
German  model,  if  she  had  copied  the  admirable 



German  efficiency,  military,  industrial  and  so- 
cial (and  had  then,  unlike  Germany,  applied  it 
with  regard  for,  instead  of  with  disregard  for, 
the  rights  of  others),  she  would  have  been  able 
to  rescue  Belgium  and  France  from  invasion  and 
her  own  position  would  now  be  absolutely  as- 
sured. She  was  well  prepared  from  a  naval  point 
of  view  and  so  was  able  to  protect  herself  on  the 
ocean.  But,  when  she  guaranteed  Belgium's 
neutrality,  she  abandoned  her  sea  frontier  and 
pushed  her  land  frontier  forward  to  the  German 
border  beyond  Liege.  She  failed  to  realize  this 
fact — just  as  we  have  failed  to  realize  that  our 
own  moral  frontier  is  not  our  own  seaboard,  but 
is  overseas,  in  Alaska  and  Hawaii  and  the  Pan- 
ama Canal  Zone. 

But  Belgium,  when  compared  with  Switzer- 
land, offers  the  most  complete  example.  In 
many  respects  Belgium  a  year  ago  stood  strik- 
ingly near  to  where  the  United  States  stands  to- 
day. She  had  not  been  quite  as  shortsighted  as 
we  have  shown  and  are  now  showing  ourselves 
to  be;  but  she  had  been  very  shortsighted.  She 
was  an  absolutely  peaceful  and  exceedingly  pros- 
perous country.  She  had  a  great  industrial  pop- 
ulation. For  many  years  the  wiser  among  her 
people,  including  especially,  by  the  way,  the  wis- 
est representatives  of  the  labor  element,  the  So- 
cialists and  others,  had  preached  preparedness, 



so  that  the  country  might  be  saved  from  invasion 
by  its  great  military  neighbors.  But  her  inter- 
national policy  was  determined  by  the  pacifists 
and  peace-at-any-price  men,  the  men  and  women 
who  said  that  it  was  "immoral  to  fight"  and  that 
"war  settled  nothing,"  and  the  other  men  and 
women  who  said  that  nobody  would  ever  attack 
Belgium  because  she  was  peaceful,  and  never 
committed  aggression,  and  that  all  that  was  nec- 
essary to  national  well-being  was  business  pros- 
perity, and  attention  to  measures  of  internal  re- 
form. These  persons  were  successful  in  pre- 
venting any  adequate  preparation.  Only  a  very 
inadequate  one  had  been  attempted  and  that  only 
during  the  last  year  or  two.  This  inadequate 
preparation  was  directly  responsible  for  disaster 
so  overwhelming  as  to  wipe  out  what  had  been 
built  up  by  generations  of  patient  industry. 

Switzerland  meanwhile,  the  most  peaceful 
country  in  Europe,  had  energetically  taken  full 
measures  for  her  self-defence.  Switzerland  had 
an  army  of  400,000  men,  highly  efficient.  Bel- 
gium, according  to  her  population,  on  the  same 
basis  would  have  had  an  army  of  700,000  men. 
If  she  had  had  such  an  army  and  had  acted  pre- 
cisely as  Switzerland  acted,  Belgian  territory 
would  now  be  in  Belgian  hands  and  the  line 
of  western  war  in  Europe,  representing  what 
has  been  for  fourteen  months  a  stalemate,  would 



have  left  Belgium  on  the  right  instead  of 
on  the  wrong  side ;  and  she  would  have  been  free 
instead  of  trodden  down  and  wasted  under  an 
appalling  tyranny.  No  one  acquainted  with  re- 
cent German  military  history,  and  with  German 
military  plans  for  the  past  twenty  years,  doubts 
for  a  moment  that  the  German  invasion  would 
have  taken  place  as  quickly  through  Switzerland 
as  through  Belgium  if  it  had  been  safe.  But 
Belgium's  army  was  only  about  one-sixth  the 
size  of  the  Swiss  army.  The  small  Belgian  army 
fought  valiantly;  the  conduct  of  the  Belgian  peo- 
ple during  the  last  eleven  months  has  been  above 
all  praise ;  and  they  have  rendered  mankind  their 
debtor  by  their  heroism.  But  the  heroism  came 
too  late  to  be  of  avail.  It  was  too  late  to  prepare, 
or  to  make  good  the  lack  of  preparedness,  when 
once  the  Germans  crossed  the  border.  Switzer- 
land had  prepared  in  advance  and  Switzerland 
is  at  peace  now,  while  the  soil  of  Belgium  has 
been  trodden  into  bloody  mire.  The  physical  na- 
ture of  the  two  countries  has  nothing  to  do  with 
the  difference.  A  century  ago,  Napoleon's  arm- 
ies treated  Switzerland  as  cavalierly  as  Germany 
to-day  treats  Belgium ;  and  for  the  same  reason ; 
because  Switzerland  was  then  utterly  unpre- 

Let  our  people  take  warning.     Look  at  what 
has  happened  in  Asia  at  the  same  time.    Japan 



was  prepared;  Japan  was  ready  to  fight.  With 
trivial  loss  she  has  made  enormous  gains  and 
now  dominates  China.  China  was  not  ready  to 
fight;  she  had  not  prepared.  In  natural  re- 
sources, in  territory,  in  population,  she  many 
times  over  surpassed  Japan;  but  she  had  com- 
mitted the  cardinal  sin  of  neglecting  to  prepare; 
and  she  now  is  at  Japan's  mercy  and  her  very 
existence  is  a  matter  of  doubt. 

The  most  certain  way  for  a  nation  to  invite 
disaster  is  to  be  opulent,  self-assertive  and  un- 
armed. A  nation  can  no  more  prepare  for  self- 
defence  when  war  actually  threatens  than  a 
spoiled  college  "sissy"  of  the  pacifist  type  can 
defend  himself  if  a  young  tough  chooses  to  in- 
sult him;  and  unlike  the  sissy,  the  nation  cannot 
under  such  conditions  appeal  to  the  police.  Now 
and  then  to  insure  a  house  means  that  some 
scoundrel  burns  the  house  down  in  order  to  get 
the  insurance.  But  we  do  not  in  consequence 
abandon  insurance  against  fire.  Now  and  then 
a  nation  prepares  itself  for  a  war  of  aggression. 
But  this  is  no  argument  against  preparedness  in 
order  to  repel  aggression.  Preparedness  against 
war  is  the  only  efficient  form  of  national  peace 



OVER  forty  years  ago  Charles  Dickens 
wrote  as  follows  of  the  United  States: 
"In  these  times  in  which  I  write  it  is  honorably 
remarkable  for  protecting  its  subjects  wherever 
they  may  travel  with  a  dignity  and  a  determina- 
tion which  is  a  model  for  England."  Ulysses 
Grant  was  then  President  of  the  United  States. 
Like  Washington  and  Lincoln  and  Andrew 
Jackson,  he  was  an  American  who  was  not 
too  proud  to  fight.  Those  of  my  countrymen 
who  are  still  faithful  to  the  old  American  tra- 
dition cannot  but  feel  with  bitter  shame  the  con- 
trast between  the  conditions  Charles  Dickens 
thus  described  and  the  conditions  at  the  present 

The  policy  of  watchful  waiting,  a  policy  popu- 
lar among  governmental  chiefs  of  a  certain  type 
ever  since  the  days  of  Ethelred  the  Unready  and 
for  thousands  of  years  anterior  to  that  not 
wholly  fortunate  ruler,  has  failed,  as  of  course 
it  always  does  fail  in  the  presence  of  serious  dif- 
ficulty and  of  a  resolute  and  ruthless  foe.  We 



have  tried  every  possible  expedient  save  only  the 
application  of  wisdom  and  resolution.  It  has 
been  said  that  we  have  not  tried  war;  but  this 
statement  can  be  made  only  by  those  who  are 
inexact  in  their  terminology.  Of  course,  if  any 
one's  feelings  are  soothed  by  saying  that  when 
we  took  Vera  Cruz,  suffered  a  loss  of  a  hundred 
and  twenty  men  killed  and  wounded  and  in  re- 
turn killed  and  wounded  several  hundred  Mexi- 
cans, we  were  waging  peace  and  not  waging 
war,  why  there  is  no  particular  objection  to  this 
individual  gaining  whatever  comfort  is  afforded 
by  using  words  which  misdescribe  facts.  But 
this  is  all  the  comfort  he  can  gain.  As  a  natural 
result  of  the  impression  created  on  foreigners  by 
our  conduct  in  Mexico,  we  were  forced  to  hostile 
action  in  Haiti  and  a  number  of  our  men  and  our 
opponents  were  killed  and  wounded.  Appar- 
ently we  "waged  peace"  in  Haiti,  much  as  we 
"waged  peace"  in  Mexico — and  in  Mexico  the 
end  of  the  war  or  peace  or  whatever  it  was 
that  we  waged  was  that  we  withdrew  without  get- 
ting the  result  which  our  Government  had  an- 
nounced that  it  would  get  when  it  took  Vera 

We  of  the  United  States  have  had  a  twofold 
duty  imposed  on  us  during  the  last  year.  We 
have  owed  a  duty  to  ourselves.  We  have  owed 
a  duty  to  others.  We  have  failed  in  both. 



Primarily  both  failures  are  due  to  the  mis- 
chievous effects  of  the  professional  pacifist 
agitation  which  became  governmental  nearly  five 
years  ago  when  the  then  Administration  at 
Washington  sought  to  negotiate  various  all-in- 
clusive arbitration  treaties  under  which  we  aban- 
doned the  right  to  stand  up  for  our  own  vital 
interest  and  national  honor.  Very  reluctantly 
we  who  believe  in  peace,  but  in  the  peace  of 
righteousness,  have  been  forced  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  most  prominent  leaders  of  the  peace  agi- 
tation of  the  past  ten  years  in  this  country,  so 
far  as  they  have  accomplished  anything  that  was 
not  purely  fatuous,  have  accomplished  nothing 
but  mischief.  This  result  of  the  activities  of 
these  professional  pacifist  agitators  has  been  due 
mainly  to  the  fact  that  they  have  consistently 
placed  peace  ahead  of  righteousness,  and  have 
resolutely  refused  to  look  facts  in  the  face  if  they 
thought  the  facts  were  unpleasant. 

It  is  as  foolish  to  ignore  common  sense  in  this 
matter  as  in  any  other  matter.  It  is  as  wicked 
to  exalt  peace  at  the  expense  of  morality  as  it 
is  to  exalt  war  at  the  expense  of  morality.  The 
greatest  service  that  Lincoln  rendered  to  the 
cause  of  permanent  peace  and  to  the  greater 
cause  of  justice  and  of  righteousness  was  ren- 
dered by  him  when,  with  unshaken  firmness,  he 
accepted  four  years  of  grinding  warfare  rather 



than  yield  to  the  professional  pacifists  of  his  day 
— the  Copperheads.  Washington's  greatest  serv- 
ice to  peace  was  rendered  by  similar  action  on 
his  part.  And  be  it  remembered  that  never  in 
history  have  two  men  rendered  greater  service  to 
the  only  kind  of  peace  worth  having  for  honor- 
able men  and  women  than  was  rendered  by  these 
two  heroes  who  did  not  shrink  from  righteous 

Failure  to  perform  duty  to  others  is  merely 
aggravated  by  failure  to  perform  duty  to  our- 
selves. To  pay  twenty-five  million  dollars 
blackmail  to  Colombia  does  not  atone  for  our 
timid  refusal  to  do  our  duty  by  Belgium.  It 
merely  aggravates  it.  Moreover,  it  should  al- 
ways be  remembered  that  in  these  matters  the 
weak  cannot  be  helped  by  the  weak ;  that  the  bru- 
tal wrongdoer  cannot  be  checked  by  the  coward 
or  by  the  fat,  boastful,  soft  creature  who  does 
not  take  the  trouble  to  make  himself  fit  to  en- 
force his  words  by  his  deeds.  Preparedness 
means  forethought,  effort,  trouble,  labor. 
Therefore  soft  men,  selfish,  indolent  men,  men 
absorbed  in  money-getting,  and  the  great  mass 
of  well-meaning  men  who  shrink  from  perform- 
ing the  new  duties  created  by  new  needs,  eagerly 
welcome  a  political  leader  who  will  comfort  them, 
and  relieve  their  secret  sense  of  shame,  by  using 



high-sounding  names  to  describe  their  shortcom- 

An  adroit  politician  can  unquestionably  gain 
many  votes  in  such  fashion,  if  he  exalts  unpre- 
paredness  as  a  duty,  if  he  praises  peace  and  ad- 
vocates neutrality,  as  both  in  themselves  moral 
— even  although  the  "peace"  and  "neutrality" 
may  be  conditioned  on  the  failure  to  do  our  duty 
either  to  others  or  to  ourselves.  Such  a  politi- 
cian, if  he  excels  in  the  use  of  high-sounding 
words,  may  win  votes  and  gain  office  by  thus 
pandering  to  men  who  wish  to  hear  their  selfish- 
ness, their  short-sightedness  or  their  timidity  ex- 
alted into  virtues.  But  he  is  sapping  the  moral 
vitality  of  the  people  whom  he  misleads. 

It  has  been  an  evil  thing  that  this  nation, 
which  for  five  years  has  been  strutting  as  the 
champion  of  peace  and  holding  conferences  to 
denounce  war  and  praising  its  wealthy  citizens 
for  founding  peace  leagues,  has  contented  itself 
with  these  futile  activities  and  has  not  dared  to 
strike  a  blow,  has  not  dared  even  to  say  a  word 
for  righteousness  in  the  concrete,  while  wrong 
has  been  at  least  temporarily  triumphant  during 
the  past  eighteen  months.  It  is  an  even  worse 
thing  that  during  this  last  eighteen  months  we 
have  wholly  failed  to  prepare  to  defend  our  own 
homes  from  disaster. 

Nor  can  we,  the  people  of  the  United  States, 

escape  blame  for  ourselves  by  putting  it  upon 
our  public  servants.  Unquestionably  the  Admin- 
istration has  been  guilty  of  culpable  indifference 
to  the  honor  and  the  interest  of  the  nation  dur- 
ing the  last  year  and  a  half;  but  it  has  been  guilty 
in  this  fashion  precisely  because  it  could  count 
upon  popular  support ;  and  therefore  the  ultimate 
blame  rests  on  the  people,  that  is,  on  us.  It  may 
well  be  that  political  gain  will  come  to  the  politi- 
cians who  appeal  to  what  is  selfish  and  timid 
in  the  hearts  of  our  people,  and  who  comfort 
soft  self-indulgence  by  praising  it  as  virtuous. 
A  correspondent  from  Virginia,  who  has  always 
been  opposed  to  me  politically,  writes:  "The 
most  depressing  feature  of  the  present  situation 
is  that  the  great  majority  of  the  American  people 
strongly  approve  of  the  stand  of  President  Wil- 
son and  the  other  apostles  of  Buchananism. 
Every  one  is  so  satisfied  with  his  money-mak- 
ing and  comforts,  the  moving-picture  shows, 
and  his  automobile  that  there  is  horror  at 
the  thought  of  death  and  of  need  and  hunger  and 
fatigue.  There  is  a  self-righteous  disposition  to 
regard  heroism  as  wickedness,  and  to  consider  all 
soldiers  as  wicked  and  immoral.  Teace  with 
honor'  is  on  the  lips  of  many  when  the  brutal 
alternatives  are  war  with  honor  or  peace  with 
everlasting  shame  and  dishonor.  The  Admin- 
istration is  thoroughly  terrorized  by  the  Ger- 



mans.  The  people  of  this  section  are  for  peace 
at  any  price."  This  may  be  the  general  senti- 
ment of  the  American  people,  and  if  so,  then 
those  who  pander  to  it  will  profit  politically.  But 
they  will  win  profit  for  themselves  by  helping 
to  debase  their  fellow-countrymen. 

When  the  world  war  broke  out  over  a  year 
ago,  it  was  simply  inexcusable  for  this  people  not 
at  once  to  begin  the  work  of  preparation.  If  we 
had  done  so,  we  would  now  have  been  able  to 
make  our  national  voice  felt  effectively  in  help- 
ing to  bring  about  peace  with  justice — and  no 
other  peace  ought  to  be  allowed.  But  not  one 
thing  has  been  done  by  those  in  power  to  make 
us  ready.  On  the  contrary,  in  his  message  to 
Congress  of  December,  1914,  the  President  elab- 
orately argued  in  favor  of  keeping  ourselves 
unprepared,  expressing  the  hope  that,  if  we  thus 
preserved  immunity  from  hatred  by  keeping  our- 
selves beneath  contempt,  we  might  create  a  situ- 
ation where  he  would  be  employed  as  a  go-be- 
tween, as  the  man  to  fetch  and  carry  among  the 
warring  powers  when  the  time  for  peace  nego- 
tiations arrived. 

The  attitude  of  the  German- American  press  in 
this  country  toward  the  subsequent  notes  of  the 
President  to  Germany  throws  the  true  light  on 
this  fond  anticipation.  These  hyphenated  Amer- 
ican newspapers  have  shown  that  their  entire 



loyalty  is  to  that  portion  of  the  compound  term 
which  precedes  the  hyphen,  and  that  they  trans- 
late the  term  German- American  as  meaning  that 
they  are  Germans  who  use  their  position  in 
America  as  a  means  for  endeavoring  to  force 
America  to  sacrifice  its  own  honor  and  the  in- 
terests of  mankind  in  order  to  serve  the  Ger- 
man Government.  The  professional  German- 
Americans  here,  acting,  as  has  been  shown  by 
President  Wilson's  ardent  supporters  in  New 
York,  with  the  connivance  of  the  Administra- 
tion, and  by  the  direct  instigation  of  the  Ger- 
man Government,  have  deliberately  campaigned 
against  the  United  States,  have  exulted  in  the 
German  atrocities,  and  have  openly  stated  that 
the  support  of  the  German- American  vote  was 
conditioned  upon  the  Administration's  attitude 
toward  Germany,  and  that  Germany  would  let 
President  Wilson  play  a  part  in  the  peace  ne- 
gotiations only  if  he  actively  or  passively  helped 
Germany  in  the  war.  He  has  found  them  hard 
taskmasters ;  and  they  have  so  angered  his  other 
masters,  the  American  people,  that  the  latter 
have  forced  him  to  belated  and  half-hearted  ac- 
tion. After  eighteen  months  he  has  begun  feebly 
to  advocate  an  imperfect  preparedness.  After 
mere  conversation  for  seven  months  over  the 
Lusitania  with  Germany  he  finally  becomes  an- 
gry with  Austria  over  the  Ancona — for  Austria 



is  weaker  than  Germany  and  it  is  safer  to  be 
angry  with  her.  But  he  takes  no  action  about  the 
various  other  ships  which  were  sunk — there  was 
little  popular  excitement  about  these  ships. 

Men  are  not  to  be  seriously  blamed  for  failure 
to  see  or  foresee  what  is  hidden  from  all  but 
eyes  that  are  almost  prophetic.  The  most  far- 
seeing  Americans,  since  the  days  of  Washington, 
have  always  stood  in  advance  of  popular  feeling 
in  the  United  States  so  far  as  national  prepar- 
edness against  war  is  concerned.  But  on  the 
other  hand  not  a  few  of  the  leaders  have  been 
much  less  advanced  than  the  people  they  led. 
And  under  right  leadership  the  people  have  al- 
ways been  willing  to  grapple  with  facts  that  were 
fairly  obvious.  They  have  refused  to  do  this 
when  the  official  leadership  was  wrong. 

Twenty  years  after  the  Civil  War  we  had  let 
our  Army  and  Navy  sink  to  a  point  below  that 
of  any  third-class  power  in  Europe.  Then  we 
began  to  build  up  the  Navy.  The  Navy  is  more 
important  to  us  than  any  other  branch  of  the 
service;  and  gradually  our  people  grew  to  ap- 
preciate this.  In  1898  came  the  Spanish  War. 
We  did  badly;  but  the  Spaniards  did  worse.  As 
that  profound  philosopher  who  writes  under  the 
name  of  "Mr.  Dooley"  put  it:  "We  were  in  a 
dream;  but  the  Spaniards  were  in  a  trance." 
However,  as  a  result  we  did  bring  our  Navy  up  to 



the  fourth  or  fifth  position  among  the  navies  of 
the  big  powers,  and  we  did  raise  our  Army  until 
it  was  capable  of  being  expanded  to  a  hun- 
dred thousand.  But  immediately  that  the  war 
was  over  Congress,  probably,  I  regret  to  say,  re- 
flecting popular  indifference,  sagged  back.* 
In  1901,  under  the  malign  leadership  of  cer- 

*  Certain  adherents  of  the  Administration,  in  endeavoring 
untruthfully  to  defend  it,  have  actually  asserted  that  while 
I  was  President  I  did  not  myself  do  enough  to  upbuild  the 
Army  and  Navy!  Of  course  these  individuals  know  per- 
fectly well  that  the  criticism  aimed  at  me  while  I  was  Pres- 
ident was  invariably  because  I  was  supposed  to  be  too  mili- 
taristic, and  my  critics  always  condemned  me  for  endeavor- 
ing to  force  Congress  to  go  farther  than  it  was  willing  to  go 
in  building  up  the  Army  and  Navy.  During  my  term  in  the 
Presidency  the  Navy  was  increased  threefold  in  strength 
and  at  least  sixfold  in  efficiency;  the  Army  was  certainly 
doubled  in  efficiency.  I  did  my  best  to  get  Congress  to  do 
much  more  than  it  would  do.  I  accomplished  the  very 
utmost  that  by  appeal  and  argument  I  could  get  the  people 
to  support.  Beginning  with  my  first  message  to  Congress, 
on  December  3d,  1901,  and  in  every  year  in  my  subsequent 
messages,  I  at  length  and  in  detail  argued  for  "preparedness 
in  advance,"  for  "forethought  and  preparation,"  in  building 
up  our  naval  and  military  forces,  in  favor  of  training  "for 
years"  in  advance  our  crews,  for  "no  cessation  in  adding  to 
the  effective  units  of  the  fighting  fleet,"  for  a  general  staff, 
for  keeping  only  the  military  posts  and  navy  yards  demanded 
by  military  needs,  etc.,  etc.  I  repeated  these  arguments  in 
dozens  of  speeches  in  every  quarter  of  the  Union.  My  mes- 
sages to  Congress  and  these  speeches,  in  which  I  so  often 
and  at  such  length  argued  for  full  preparedness  in  advance, 
are  open  to  any  one  who  has  access  to  a  public  library. 



tain  men  on  the  Senate  Naval  Committee,  Con- 
gress actually  stopped  making  any  appropriation 
whatever  for  fighting  ships.  During  the  suc- 
ceeding eight  years,  however,  the  interrupted 
work  was  resumed.  The  Navy  was  steadily  built 
up  in  numbers  and  still  more  in  efficiency ;  shoot- 
ing and  fleet  maneuvering  on  a  large  scale  were 
for  the  first  time  treated  as  they  should  have 
been  treated;  and  the  result  was  that  in  1909  our 
fleet  stood  second  among  the  fleets  of  the  world 
and  was  in  shape  to  guarantee  us  against  the 
aggression  of  any  foreign  power.  This  was  then 
our  first  duty;  and  it  had  been  accomplished. 
Meanwhile  the  efficiency  of  the  Army  had  like- 
wise been  greatly  increased,  as  was  shown  by  the 
contrast  between  the  handling  of  the  expedition- 
ary force  to  Cuba  under  General  Barry  and  the 
handling  of  the  army  corps  under  General  Shaf- 
ter  six  or  eight  years  previously.  But  very  prop- 
erly the  men  who  were  alive  to  the  need  of  na- 
tional defence  had  to  devote  their  chief  attention 
to  the  Navy;  and  it  was  impossible  to  get  the 
public  to  consider  both  our  real  military  and  our 
real  naval  needs. 

Then  came  the  awful  cataclysm  of  the  present 
world  war.  During  the  years  1913  and  1914  our 
Navy  deteriorated  with  frightful  rapidity.  This 
was  partly  due  to  the  way  it  was  handled 
in  connection  with  our  absurd  and  humiliating 



little  make-believe  war  with  Mexico.  Our  ships 
were  not  maneuvered  and  were  never  trained  in 
fleet  or  squadron  gunnery  during  these  two 
years;  and  in  consequence  of  this,  among  other 
causes,  our  fleet  now  stands  certainly  not  higher 
than  fifth  among  the  nations  in  point  of  effi- 
ciency and  is  not  fit  at  this  moment  to  defend 
us  from  serious  attack. 

The  events  of  the  last  year  have  shown  that 
all  who  believed  that  the  most  frightful  wrong- 
doing by  warlike  nations  could  be  averted  by  the 
opinion  of  civilized  mankind  as  a  whole  have 
been  utterly  in  error.  What  is  happening  in  this 
year  1916  shows  that  not  the  slightest  particle 
of  advance  in  international  morality  has  been 
made  during  the  century  that  has  elapsed  since 
the  close  of  the  Napoleonic  wars.  This  failure 
is  quite  as  much  due  to  the  misconduct  of  the 
pacifists  as  to  the  misconduct  of  the  militarists. 
The  milk-and-water  statesmanship  of  the  Amer- 
ican Government  during  the  past  year  has  been  a 
direct  aid  to  the  statesmanship  of  blood-and-iron 
across  the  water;  it  may  not  be  as  wicked,  but 
it  is  far  more  contemptible.  The  United  States 
has  signally  and  culpably  failed  to  keep  its  prom- 
ises made  in  the  Hague  Conventions,  and  to  stand 
for  the  right.  Instead,  it  has  taken  refuge  in  the 
world-old  neutrality  between  right  and  wrong 
which  is  always  so  debasing  for  the  man  prac- 



tising  it.  As  has  been  well  said,  such  a  neutral  is 
the  ignoblest  work  of  God. 

There  was  much  excuse  for  a  general  failure 
of  Americans  to  understand  the  danger  to  Amer- 
ica prior  to  what  happened  in  this  world  war. 
But  now  there  is  no  excuse  whatever.  Now, 
thanks  to  our  own  feeble  shirking  of  duty,  we 
know  that  if  any  great  nation  menaces  us,  no 
matter  how  innocent  of  offence  we  may  be,  we 
have  absolutely  nothing  to  expect  from  other  na- 
tions. Most  assuredly  the  neutrality  we  have 
kept  between  right  and  wrong  when  Belgium  was 
trodden  under  foot  will  be  repaid  us  if  our  turn 
comes.  Small  blame  will  attach  to  the  nations 
which  grinningly  quote  our  own  neutral  procla- 
mations and  say  that  they  themselves  intend  in 
their  turn  to  be  neutral  not  only  in  deed  but 
even  in  thought,  if  any  European  or  Asiatic  mili- 
tary power  concludes  to  take  from  us  the  Panama 
Canal  or  Hawaii  or  Porto  Rico  or  to  seize  and 
hold  for  ransom  New  York  or  San  Francisco. 
Moreover,  this  war  has  made  it  evident  that 
armies  of  hundreds  of  thousands  of  men  can  be 
transported  not  only  across  the  narrow  but 
across  the  broad  seas.  England's  great  navy  has 
made  the  ocean  a  barrier  to  her  foes,  and  a  high- 
way for  herself,  and  it  is  only  Britain's  navy 
which  has  saved  her  from  utter  disgrace. 

Let  us  profit  alike  by  Belgium's  heroic  example 


in  the  present,  and  by  the  terrible  fate  brought 
on  her  by  her  lack  of  forethought  and  prepared- 
ness in  the  past.  At  present,  in  spite  of  the  shat- 
tering disasters  of  the  last  year  and  a  quarter, 
and  although  only  a  tiny  fraction  of  her  territory 
is  left  unconquered,  Belgium's  army  is  stronger 
and  more  efficient  than  ever  before.  It  numbers 
about  120,000  fighting  men,  with  over  400  guns 
and  thousands  of  machine  guns  and  in  addition 
first-class  services  of  aviation,  food  supply,  sani- 
tation, manufacture  of  ammunition  and  the  like. 
There  are  fourteen  centers  for  the  drilling  of 
recruits,  and  excellent  schools  for  the  officers. 
The  morale  of  the  army  is  extraordinary.  I 
know  of  nothing  finer  in  history  than  the  way 
in  which  this  army  has  been  raised  and  main- 
tained by  the  Belgian  nation  in  the  midst  of  a 
cataclysm  well-nigh  unparalleled  in  the  history 
of  nations.  But  this  cataclysm,  this  frightful 
and  crushing  disaster  to  Belgium,  occurred  pre- 
cisely because  no  such  effort  was  put  forth  be- 
fore the  event.  The  splendid  heroism  of  the 
present  can  only  repair  a  small  part  of  the  horri- 
ble damage  due  to  the  unpreparedness  of  the 
past.  Belgium  has  suffered  the  last  extremities 
of  woe;  and  she  would  have  gone  almost  un- 
scathed if  before  the  war  came  she  had  prepared 
an  army  as  strong  relatively  to  her  then  strength 



as  the  present  army  is  strong  relative  to  her  pres- 
ent weakness. 

England,  during  the  first  year  of  the  war,  af- 
forded a  lamentable  example  of  the  punishment 
that  will  surely  in  the  end  befall  any  nation  which 
fails  to  take  its  duties  seriously  and  to  prepare 
herself  thoroughly  in  advance  by  universal  mili- 
tary training  of  her  citizens,  and  by  a  high  stand- 
ard of  loyal  social  efficiency,  for  the  evil  day 
when  war  may  come  on  the  land.  Her  navy  did 
admirably  from  the  beginning — thanks  to  men 
like  Lord  Fisher,  who  built  it  up,  and  to  Prince 
Louis  of  Battenberg,  who  mobilized  it  in  the 
nick  of  time,  with  an  efficiency  comparable  to  that 
which  marked  the  mobilization  of  the  German 
army.  Her  soldiers  at  the  front  behaved  splen- 
didly. But  the  English  people  as  a  whole  did  not 
appear  to  advantage  when  compared,  for  in- 
stance, with  the  French,  until  more  than  a  year 
had  gone  by.  This  was  true  of  their  capitalists. 
It  was  still  more  true  of  their  workingmen — com- 
pare their  striking  workmen  with  the  French 
workingmen,  who  toiled  night  and  day,  and  ex- 
changed brotherly  greetings  with  the  generals  at 
the  front.  It  was  true  of  their  men  in  Parliament 
and  the  press  who  opposed  universal  military 
service.  Over  a  year  passed  before  they  began 
to  produce  the  instruments  and  munitions  of  war 
in  a  way  at  all  comparable  with  what  was  being 



done  in  France  and  Germany.  Her  people  have 
as  a  whole  volunteered  in  magnificent  manner; 
but  those  who  wished  to  shirk  their  duty  were 
permitted  to  shirk  their  duty,  and  this  was  a  thor- 
oughly evil  thing.  Now,  eighteen  months  after 
the  outbreak  of  the  war,  her  people  are  working 
with  extraordinary  resolution  and  patriotism, 
but  it  is  not  possible  wholly  to  undo  the  evil  done 
by  the  lack  of  preparedness  in  advance. 

If  there  were  no  lesson  in  this  for  us,  I  cer- 
tainly should  not  dwell  on  the  fact.  The  im- 
portant point  for  us  to  remember  is  that  if  Eng- 
land did  not  do  as  well  as  she  ought  to  have  done, 
she  did  infinitely  better  than  we  would  have 
done;  and  moreover  she  has  learned  her  lesson 
and  is  doing  well,  whereas  we  have  not  learned 
our  lesson,  and  our  national  leaders,  executive, 
legislative,  and  non-official,  from  Mr.  Wilson  and 
Mr.  Bryan  to  such  Congressmen  as  Messrs. 
Kitchin  and  Hay,  are  still  acting  in  a  way  that 
brings  dishonor  to  the  American  name  and  that 
is  fraught  with  the  gravest  peril  to  the  future 
of  the  nation.  Capital  books  have  been  inspired 
by  this  war;  Owen  Wister's  "Pentecost  of 
Calamity,"  for  instance;  but  in  its  practical 
teachings  the  best  book  that  this  war  has  pro- 
duced is  Oliver's  "Ordeal  by  Battle."  I  wish 
that  every  American  would  read  Mr.  Oliver's 
book  and  would  realize  that  everything  there  said 



as  to  both  the  shortcomings  and  the  needs  of  the 
English  people  applies  with  far  greater  force  to 
the  American  people  at  the  present  time.  Col. 
Arthur  Lee,  M.P.,  in  an  address  to  his  con- 
stituents which  all  Americans  should  read,  has 
clearly  placed  before  the  British  people  the  vital 
needs  and  duties  of  the  hour.  Our  politicians  and 
our  self-styled  humanitarians  and  peace  lovers, 
if  they  would  read  this  address  with  open  minds, 
would  profit  much. 

Most  certainly  we  should  avoid  with  horror 
the  ruthlessness  and  brutality  and  the  cynical 
indifference  to  international  right  which  the 
Government  of  Germany  has;  shown  during  the 
past  year,  and  we  should  shun,  as  we  would  shun 
the  plague,  the  production  in  this  country  of  a 
popular  psychology  like  that  which  in  Germany 
has  produced  a  public  opinion  that  backs  the 
Government  in  its  actions  in  Belgium,  and  cheers 
popular  songs  which  exult  in  the  slaughter  of 
women  and  children  on  the  high  seas.  But  if  we 
value  the  heritage  bequeathed  to  us  by  Washing- 
ton and  saved  for  us  by  Lincoln,  we  will  at  once 
begin  the  effort  to  emulate  the  German  efficiency, 
efficiency  which  is  not  only  military  but  also  so- 
cial and  industrial. 

We  in  America  claim  that  a  democracy  can  be 
as  efficient  for  defence  as  an  autocracy,  as  a  des- 
potism. It  is  idle  to  make  this  claim,  it  is  idle 



to  utter  windy  eloquence  in  Fourth  of  July 
speeches,  and  to  prate  in  public  documents  about 
our  greatness  and  our  adherence  to  democratic 
principles  and  the  mission  we  have  to  do  good 
on  the  earth  by  spineless  peace  fulness,  if  we  are 
not  able,  if  we  are  not  willing,  to  make  our  words 
count  by  means  of  our  deeds.  Germany  stands 
as  the  antithesis  of  democracy.  She  exults  in  her 
belief  that  in  England  democracy  has  broken 
down.  She  exults  in  the  fact  that  in  America 
democracy  has  shown  itself  so  utterly  futile  that 
it  has  not  even  dared  to  speak  about  wrongdoing 
committed  against  others,  and  has  not  dared  to 
do  more  than  speak,  without  acting,  when  the 
wrong  was  done  against  itself.  She  openly  ex- 
ults in  and  counts  upon  the  fact  that  the  profes- 
sional German-Americans  are  disloyal  to  the 
United  States.  She  uses  the  politicians  who  are 
afraid  of  the  German-American  vote. 

Every  professional  pacifist  in  America,  every 
representative  of  commercialized  greed,  every 
apostle  of  timidity,  every  sinister  creature  who 
betrays  his  country  by  pandering  to  the  anti- 
American  feeling  which  masquerades  under 
some  species  of  hyphenated  Americanism — all 
these  men  and  women  and  their  representatives 
in  public  life  are  at  this  moment  working  against 
democracy.  If  the  democratic  ideal  fails,  if  de- 
mocracy goes  down,  they  will  be  primarily  to 



blame.  For  democracy  will  assuredly  go  down 
if  it  once  be  shown  that  it  is  incompatible  with 
national  security.  The  law  of  self-preservation 
is  the  primary  law  for  nations  as  for  individu- 
als. If  a  nation  cannot  protect  itself  under  a 
democratic  form  of  government,  then  it  will 
either  die  or  evolve  a  new  form  of  government. 

I  believe  that  our  people  will  realize  these 
facts.  I  believe  that  our  people  will  make  democ- 
racy successful.  They  can  only  do  so  if  they 
show  by  their  actions  that  they  understand  the 
responsibilities  that  go  with  democracy.  The 
first  and  the  greatest  of  these  responsibilities  is 
the  responsibility  of  national  self-defence.  We 
must  be  prepared  to  defend  a  country  governed 
in  accordance  with  the  democratic  ideal  or  else 
we  are  guilty  of  treason  to  that  ideal.  To  de- 
fend the  country  it  is  necessary  to  organize  the 
country  in  peace,  or  it  cannot  be  organized  in 
war.  A  riot  of  unrestricted  individualism  in 
time  of  peace  means  impotence  for  sustained  and 
universal  national  effort  toward  a  common  end 
in  war  time.  Neither  businessman  nor  wage- 
worker  should  be  permitted  to  do  anything  detri- 
mental to  the  people  as  a  whole;  and  if  they  act 
honestly  and  efficiently  they  should  in  all  ways 
be  encouraged.  There  should  be  social  cohesion. 
We  must  devise  methods  by  which  under  our 
democratic  government  we  shall  secure  the  so- 



cialization  of  industry  which  autocratic  Germany 
has  secured,  so  that  business  may  be  encouraged 
and  yet  controlled  in  the  general  interest,  and  the 
wage-workers  guaranteed  full  justice  and  their 
full  share  of  the  reward  of  industry,  and  yet  re- 
quired to  show  the  corresponding  efficiency  and 
public  spirit  that  justify  their  right  to  an  in- 
creased reward.  But  the  vital  fact  to  remember 
is  that  ultimately  it  will  prove  worse  than  use- 
less to  have  our  people  prosper  unless  they  are 
able  to  defend  this  prosperity ;  to  fight  for  it. 

Let  us,  then,  make  up  our  minds  to  prepare; 
and  make  up  our  minds  just  what  we  want  to 
prepare  to  do.  We  have  the  Panama  Canal. 
Many  of  our  Congressmen  have  in  the  past  con- 
sistently opposed  the  upbuilding  of  the  navy  and 
the  fortification  of  the  Panama  Canal.  These 
men  may  mean  well,  but  their  action  has  repre- 
sented an  unworthy  abandonment  of  national 
duty;  and  they  have  shown  themselves  to  be  the 
most  dangerous  enemies  of  this  republic,  men 
unfit  to  be  trusted  in  public  life  in  any  position 
whatsoever.  If  the  American  people  wish  to 
support  such  public  servants,  then  let  them  in- 
stantly abandon  the  Canal,  giving  it  back  to  Pan- 
ama or  turning  it  over  to  Japan  or  Germany 
or  England  or  any  other  people  whose  ruling  class 
is  composed  of  men  and  not  of  eunuchs.  Let 
them  also  abandon  the  Monroe  Doctrine;  let 



them  abandon  all  pretense  of  protecting  life  and 
property  in  Mexico.  In  short,  let  us  take  the  po- 
sition of  the  China  of  the  Occident  and  await 
with  helpless  weakness  the  day  when  our  terri- 
tory will  be  divided  among  more  competent  peo- 

But  if  we  intend  to  play  our  part  as  a  great 
nation  and  to  be  prepared  to  defend  our  own  in- 
terests and  to  do  good  to  others,  let  us  decide 
what  we  want  to  do  and  then  make  ready  to  do  it. 
South  of  the  Equator,  that  is,  south  of  the  line  of 
approaches  on  each  side  to  the  Panama  Canal, 
we  need  no  longer  bother  about  the  Monroe  Doc- 
trine. Brazil,  Chile,  the  Argentine,  are  capable 
themselves  of  handling  the  Monroe  Doctrine  for 
all  South  America,  excepting  the  extreme  north- 
ern part.  Consider  the  case  of  Argentina,  for 
instance.  In  Argentina,  as  in  Switzerland,  they 
have  universal  military  service.  This  has  been 
of  enormous  use  to  them  industrially  and  socially. 
It  has  also  given  them  at  present  an  army  of 
close  to  half  a  million  men,  although  they  have 
not  one-tenth  the  population  of  the  United  States. 
Argentina  is  far  more  fitted  to  defend  its  own 
territory  from  a  sudden  attack  by  a  powerful 
enemy  than  is  the  United  States.  We  would  do 
well  to  sit  at  her  feet  and  learn  the  lesson  she  can 
thus  teach  us. 

Therefore  we  need  bother  with  the  Monroe 


Doctrine  only  so  far  as  the  approaches  to  the 
Panama  Canal  are  concerned,  that  is,  so  far  as 
concerns  the  territories  between  our  southern 
border  and,  roughly  speaking,  the  Equator.  We 
do  not  have  to  bother  about  the  Monroe  Doctrine 
and  Canada,  for  during  the  past  year  Canada 
has  shown  herself  infinitely  more  efficient  than 
we  are. 

This  Administration  was  elected  on  the  spe- 
cific promise  to  give  freedom  to  the  Philippines. 
The  United  States  must  keep  its  promises.  No 
greater  service  has  been  rendered  by  any  people 
to  another  during  the  past  hundred  years  than 
we  have  rendered  to  the  Philippines — and  than 
we  have  rendered  to  Cuba  also.  In  February, 
1909,  when  the  battle-fleet  returned  from  its  voy- 
age around  the  world,  the  United  States  was  in 
point  of  military,  that  is,  primarily  naval,  effi- 
ciency in  such  shape  that  there  was  no  people 
that  would  have  ventured  to  attempt  to  wrong 
us ;  and  under  such  circumstances  we  could  afford 
to  keep  the  Philippines  and  to  continue  the  work 
that  we  were  doing.  But  since  then  we  have  rela- 
tively to  other  powers  sunk  incalculably  from  a 
military  standpoint;  we  are  infinitely  less  fitted 
than  we  were  to  defend  ourselves.  Above  all,  we 
have  promised  the  Filipinos  independence  in 
terms  which  were  inevitably  understood  to  be  in- 



dependence  in  the  immediate  future ;  and  we  have 
begun  to  govern  them  weakly. 

Such  indecision  in  international  conduct  shows 
that  this  people  ought  not  to  undertake  the  gov- 
ernment of  a  distant  dependency,  and  this  both 
from  military  reasons  and  because  of  the  need  of 
keeping  promises  that  have  been  made.  Let  us, 
then,  as  speedily  as  possible,  leave  the  Philip- 
pines; and  as  the  Philippines  desire  us  to  leave 
we  would  be  quit  of  all  moral  obligations  for 
them,  and  would  under  no  circumstances  be 
obliged  to  defend  them  from  other  nations. 

There  remain  Alaska,  Hawaii,  our  own  coasts, 
and  the  Panama  Canal  and  its  approaches,  as  the 
military  problem  with  which  we  should  grapple; 
and  with  this  problem  we  should  grapple  in  the 
manner  already  set  forth  in  this  book. 

A  democracy  should  not  be  willing  to  hire 
somebody  else  to  do  its  fighting.  The  man  who 
claims  the  right  to  vote  should  be  a  man  able  and 
willing  to  fight  at  need  for  the  country  which 
gives  him  the  vote.  I  believe  in  democracy  in 
time  of  peace ;  and  I  believe  in  it  in  time  of  war. 
I  believe  in  universal  service.  Universal  service 
represents  the  true  democratic  ideal.  No  man, 
rich  or  poor,  should  be  allowed  to  shirk  it.  In 
time  of  war  every  citizen  of  the  Republic  should 
be  held  absolutely  to  serve  the  Republic  whenever 
the  Republic  needs  him  or  her.  The  pacifist  and 



the  hyphenated  American  should  be  sternly  re- 
quired to  fight  and  made  to  serve  in  the  army  and 
to  share  the  work  and  danger  of  their  braver  and 
more  patriotic  countrymen;  and  any  dereliction 
of  duty  on  their  part  should  be  punished  with  the 
sharpest  rigor.  The  man  who  will  not  fit  him- 
self to  fight  for  his  country  has  no  right  to  a 
vote  in  shaping  that  country's  policy.  As  for  the 
woman  who  approves  the  song,  "I  Did  Not  Raise 
My  Boy  To  Be  a  Soldier,"  her  place  is  in  China 
— or  by  preference  in  a  harem — and  not  in  the 
United  States.  But  she  is  all  right  if  she  will 
change  the  song  into  "I  Did  Not  Raise  My 
Boy  To  Be  the  Only  Soldier."  Every  woman 
who  has  not  raised  her  boy  to  be  a  soldier  at  need 
has  in  unwomanly  fashion  striven  to  put  a  dou- 
ble burden  on  some  other  boy  whose  mother  had 
a  patriotic  soul.  The  much-praised  "volunteer" 
system  means  nothing  but  encouraging  brave 
men  to  do  double  duty  and  incur  double  risk  in 
order  that  cowards  and  shirks  and  mere  money- 
getters  may  sit  at  home  in  a  safety  bought  by 
the  lives  of  better  men. 

The  United  States  has — and  deserves  to  have 
— only  one  friend  in  the  world.  This  is  the 
United  States.  We  have  ourselves  treated  the 
Hague  Conventions  as  scraps  of  paper;  and  we 
cannot  expect  any  one  else  to  show  the  respect 
for  such  treaties  which  we  have  lacked.  Our 



safety  and  therefore  the  safety  of  democratic  in- 
stitutions rests  on  our  own  strength  and  only  on 
our  own  strength.  If  we  are  a  true  democracy, 
if  we  really  believe  in  government  of  the  people 
by  the  people  and  for  the  people,  if  we  believe  in 
social  and  industrial  justice  to  be  achieved 
through  the  people,  and  therefore  in  the  right 
of  the  people  to  demand  the  service  of  all  the 
people,  let  us  make  the  Army  fundamentally  an 
army  of  the  whole  people. 

This  will  be  carrying  out  the  democratic  ideal. 
The  policy  advocated  for  Britain  by  Lord  Rob- 
erts was  really  the  necessary  complement  to  the 
policy  advocated  for  Britain  by  Lloyd-George. 
In  a  democracy  service  should  be  required  of 
every  man,  in  peace  and  in  war ;  we  should  guar- 
antee to  every  man  his  rights,  and  require  from 
each  man  the  full  performance  of  his  duties.  It 
may  well  be  that  in  the  end  we  shall  find  it  worth 
while  to  insist  that  all  our  young  men,  at  their 
entrance  to  manhood,  perform  a  year's  industrial 
service — in  the  harvest  fields,  in  city  sanitation, 
on  the  roads,  anywhere.  Such  service  would  be 
equally  beneficial  to  the  son  of  the  millionaire 
and  to  the  boy  who  grows  up  in  the  crowded 
quarters  of  our  great  cities  or  out  on  lonely  farms 
in  the  back  country. 

This  is  for  the  future.  As  for  the  present, 
it  is  certain  that  a  half  year's  military  service 



would  be  a  priceless  boon  to  these  young  men 
themselves,  as  well  as  to  the  nation.  It  would 
tend  to  social  cohesion.  We  would  gain  a  genu- 
ine citizens'  army,  and  we  would  gain  a  far 
higher  type  of  citizenship.  Our  young  men,  at 
the  outset  of  their  lives,  would  be  trained — not 
merely  to  shoot  and  to  drill,  which  are  only  small 
parts  of  military  training — but  to  habits  of  bod- 
ily endurance  and  moral  self-mastery,  to  com- 
mand and  to  obey,  to  act  on  their  own  initiative 
and  to  understand  and  promptly  execute  orders, 
to  respect  themselves  and  to  respect  others,  and 
to  understand  that  they  are  to  serve  their  coun- 
try with  deeds  and  not  words  only.  Under  such 
conditions  the  young  American  would  enter  man- 
hood accustomed  to  take  pride  in  that  disciplined 
spirit  of  orderly  self-reliance  combined  with  abil- 
ity to  work  with  others,  which  is  the  most  essen- 
tial element  in  the  success  of  a  great,  free,  mod- 
ern democracy. 



AN  astonishing  proof  of  the  readiness  of 
many  persons  to  pay  heed  exclusively  to 
words  and  not  at  all  to  deeds  is  supplied  by  the 
statement  of  the  defenders  of  this  Administration 
that  President  Wilson  has  "kept  us  out  of  war 
with  Mexico"  and  has  "avoided  interference  in 
Mexico."  These  are  the  words.  The  deeds  have 
been:  first,  an  unbroken  course  of  more  or  less 
furtive  meddling  in  the  internal  affairs  of  Mex- 
ico carried  to  a  pitch  which  imposes  on  this  na- 
tion a  grave  responsibility  for  the  wrong-doing 
of  the  victorious  factions ;  and,  second,  the  plung- 
ing of  this  country  into  what  was  really  a  futile 
and  inglorious  little  war  with  Mexico,  a  war  en- 
tered into  witn  no  adequate  object,  and  aban- 
doned without  the  achievement  of  any  object 
whatever,  adequate  or  inadequate. 

To  say  that  we  did  not  go  to  war  with  Mexico 
is  a  mere  play  upon  words.  A  quarter  of  the 
wars  of  history  have  been  entered  into  and  car- 
ried through  without  any  preliminary  declaration 



of  war  and  often  without  any  declaration  of  war 
at  all.  The  seizure  of  the  leading  seaport  city 
of  another  country,  the  engagement  and  defeat 
of  the  troops  of  that  country,  and  the  retention 
of  the  territory  thus  occupied  for  a  number  of 
months,  constitute  war ;  and  denial  that  it  is  war 
can  only  serve  to  amuse  the  type  of  intellect 
which  would  assert  that  Germany  has  not  been 
at  war  with  Belgium  because  Germany  did  not 
originally  declare  war  on  Belgium.  President 
Wilson's  war  only  resulted  in  the  sacrifice  of  a 
score  of  American  lives  and  a  hundred  or  two 
of  the  lives  of  Mexicans ;  it  was  entirely  purpose- 
less, has  served  no  good  object,  has  achieved 
nothing  and  has  been  abandoned  by  Mr.  Wilson 
without  obtaining  the  object  because  of  which 
it  was  nominally  entered  into;  it  can  therefore 
rightly  be  stigmatized  as  a  peculiarly  unwise,  ig- 
noble and  inefficient  war;  but  it  was  war  never- 

This  has  been  bad  enough.  But  the  general 
course  of  the  Administration  toward  Mexico  has 
been  worse  and  even  more  productive  of  wide  and 
far-reaching  harm.  Here  again,  word-splitters 
may,  if  they  desire,  endeavor  to  show  that  the 
President  did  not  "intervene"  in  Mexico;  but  if 
so  they  would  be  obliged  to  make  a  fine  discrimi- 
nation between  intervention  and  officious  and 
mischievous  intermeddling.  Whether  it  is  said 



that  President  Wilson  "intervened"  in  Mexican 
affairs,  or  that  he  merely  intermeddled,  so  as  to 
produce  much  evil  and  no  good  and  to  make 
us  responsible  for  the  actions  of  a  peculiarly 
lawless,  ignorant  and  blood-thirsty  faction, 
is  of  small  importance.  The  distinction  is  one 
merely  of  words.  The  simple  fact  is  that  thanks 
to  President  Wilson's  action — and  at  times  his 
inaction  has  been  the  most  effective  and  vicious 
form  of  action — this  country  has  become  par- 
tially (and  guiltily)  responsible  for  some  of  the 
worst  acts  ever  committed  even  in  the  civil  wars 
of  Mexico. 

When  Mr.  Wilson  became  President  of  the 
United  States,  Huerta  was  President  of  Mexico 
On  any  theory  of  non-interference  with  the  af- 
fairs of  our  neighbors,  on  any  theory  of  avoid- 
ing war  and  of  refusing  to  take  sides  with  or 
become  responsible  for  the  deeds  of  blood-stained 
contending  factions,  it  was  the  clear  duty  of  Mr 
Wilson  to  accept  Mr.  Huerta  as  being  President 
of  Mexico.  Unless  Mr.  Wilson  was  prepared  ac- 
tively to  interfere  in  Mexico  and  to  establish 
some  sort  of  protectorate  over  it,  he  had  no  more 
business  to  pass  judgment  upon  the  methods  of 
Mr.  Huerta's  selection  (which  had  occurred  prior 
to  Mr.  Wilson's  advent  to  power)  than  Mexico 
would  have  had  to  refuse  to  recognize  Mr,  Hayes 
as  President  on  the  ground  that  it  was  not  satis- 



fied  with  his  economic  policy  and  moreover  sym- 
pathized with  Mr.  Tilden's  side  of  the  contro- 
versy. And  if  Mr.  Wilson  made  up  his  mind  to 
interfere  in  Mexico — for  of  course  the  most 
trenchant  type  of  interference  was  refusal  to  rec- 
ognize the  Mexican  President — he  should  have 
notified  Foreign  Powers  of  his  proposed  action 
in  order  to  prevent  so  far  as  possible  Huerta's 
recognition  by  them.  President  Wilson  inter- 
fered in  such  feeble  fashion  as  to  accomplish  the 
maximum  of  evil  to  us  and  to  other  foreigners 
and  the  Mexicans,  and  the  minimum  of  good  to 
anybody.  He  hit ;  but  he  hit  softly.  Now,  no  one 
should  ever  hit  if  it  can  be  avoided;  but  never 
should  any  one  "hit  soft." 

When  Mr.  Wilson  refused  to  recognize 
Huerta,  he  committed  a  definite  act  of  interfer- 
ence of  the  most  pronounced  type.  At  the  same 
time  he  and  Mr.  Bryan  looked  on  with  folded 
arms  and  without  a  protest  of  any  kind  while 
American  citizens  were  murdered  or  robbed  or 
shamefully  maltreated  in  all  parts  of  Mexico  by 
the  different  sets  of  banditti  who  masqueraded 
as  soldiers  of  the  different  factions.  He  main- 
tained for  a  long  time  a  friendly  intercourse  with 
one  chief  of  political  adventurers  through  irregu- 
larly appointed  diplomatic  agents,  and  he  adopted 
an  openly  offensive  attitude  toward  the  chief  of 
another  set,  although  he  was  then  the  de  facto 



head  of  whatever  government  Mexico  had.  Then 
he  turned  against  this  once-favored  bandit  in 
the  interest  of  a  third  bandit.  By  his  action  in 
permitting  the  transmission  of  arms  over  the  bor- 
der President  Wilson  not  only  actively  aided  the 
insurrection  but  undoubtedly  furnished  it  with 
the  means  essential  to  its  triumph,  while  at  the 
same  time  his  active  interference  prevented 
Huerta  from  organizing  an  effective  resistance. 
His  defenders  allege  that  he  could  not  properly 
have  forbidden  the  transmission  of  arms  to  the 
revolutionaries  across  the  border.  The  answer  is 
that  he  did  forbid  it  at  intervals.  He  thereby 
showed  that  he  was  taking  an  active  interest  in 
the  arming  of  the  revolutionaries,  that  he  permit- 
ted it  when  he  chose  to  do  so  and  stopped  it  in- 
termittently whenever  he  thought  it  best  to  stop 
it,  and  was  therefore  entirely  responsible  for  it. 
The  nominal  rights  which  the  contending  fac- 
tions championed,  and  the  actual  and  hideous 
wrongs  done  by  all  of  them,  were  not  our  affair 
save  in  so  far  as  Americans  and  other  foreigners 
were  maltreated.  We  may  individually  sympa- 
thize, as,  for  instance,  I  personally  do,  with  the 
general  purpose  of  the  program  for  division  of 
the  lands  among  the  Mexican  cultivators,  an- 
nounced by  Carranza,  Villa  and  other  revolution- 
ary leaders;  but  this  no  more  justified  interfer- 
ence on  our  part  than  belief  in  the  wisdom  of 



the  single  tax  for  the  United  States  by  some  for- 
eign ruler  would  warrant  his  interference  in  the 
internal  affairs  of  the  United  States.  Moreover 
nothing  in  the  career  of  Carranza  and  Villa  or 
in  the  conduct  of  the  Mexican  people  at  present 
justifies  us  in  any  belief  that  this  program  will  in 
any  real  sense  be  put  into  effect. 

However,  the  interference  took  place.  By  the 
course  President  Wilson  pursued  toward  Huerta 
and  by  the  course  he  pursued  toward  Villa  and 
Carranza,  he  actively  interfered  in  the  internal 
affairs  of  Mexico.  He  actively  sided  with  the 
faction  which  ultimately  triumphed — and  which 
immediately  split  into  other  factions  which  are 
now  no  less  actively  engaged  in  fighting  one  an- 
other. Personally,  I  do  not  think  that  the  Ad- 
ministration should  have  interfered  in  this  man- 
ner. But  one  thing  is  certain.  When  the  Admin- 
istration did  interfere,  it  was  bound  to  accept  the 
responsibility  for  its  acts.  It  could  not  give  any 
aid  to  the  revolutionaries  without  accepting  a 
corresponding  share  of  responsibility  for  their 
deeds  and  misdeeds.  It  could  not  aid  them  be- 
cause of  their  attitude  on  the  land  question  with- 
out also  assuming  a  corresponding  share  of  re- 
sponsibility for  their  attitude  toward  religion  and 
toward  the  professors  of  religion.  The  United 
States  would  have  had  no  responsibility  whatever 
for  what  was  done  to  the  Church  by  any  faction 



which  did  not  owe  its  triumph  to  action  by  the 
United  States.  But  when  the  United  States 
takes  part  in  civil  war  in  Mexico,  as  Messrs. 
Wilson  and  Bryan  forced  our  Government  to 
take  part,  this  country  has  thereby  made  itself 
responsible  for  the  frightful  wrong-doing,  for  the 
terrible  outrages  committed  by  the  victorious 
revolutionists  on  hundreds  of  the  religious  people 
of  both  sexes. 

To  avoid  the  chance  of  anything  but  willful 
misrepresentation,  let  me  emphasize  my  position. 
I  hold  that  it  was  not  our  affair  to  interfere  one 
way  or  the  other  in  the  purely  internal  affairs 
of  Mexico,  so  far  as  they  affected  only  Mexican 
citizens ;  because  if  the  time  came  when  such  in- 
terference was  absolutely  required  it  could  only 
be  justified  if  it  were  thorough-going  and  effec- 
tive. Moreover,  I  hold  that  it  was  our  clear  duty 
to  have  interfered  promptly  and  effectively  on 
behalf  of  American  citizens  who  were  wronged, 
instead  of  behaving  as  President  Wilson  and  Sec- 
retary Bryan  actually  did  behave.  To  our  dis- 
grace as  a  nation,  they  forced  American  citizens 
to  claim  and  accept  from  British  and  German 
officials  and  officers  the  protection  which  our  own 
government  failed  to  give.  When  we  did  inter- 
fere in  Mexican  internal  affairs  to  aid  one  fac- 
tion, we  thereby  made  ourselves  responsible  for 
the  deeds  of  that  faction,  and  we  have  no  right  to 



try  to  shirk  that  responsibility.  Messrs.  Wilson 
and  Bryan  declined  to  interfere  to  protect 
the  rights  of  Americans  or  of  other  foreigners 
in  Mexico.  But  they  interfered  as  between 
the  Mexicans  themselves  in  the  interest  of  one 
faction  and  with  the  result  of  placing  that  faction 
in  power.  They  therefore  bound  themselves 
to  accept  responsibility  for  the  deeds  and  mis- 
deeds of  that  faction,  and  of  the  further  factions 
into  which  it  then  split,  in  so  far  as  Mr.  Wilson 
sided  with  one  of  these  as  against  the  other. 

Not  long  ago  President  Wilson,  in  a  speech  at 
Swarthmore,  declared  that  "Nowhere  in  this 
hemisphere  can  any  government  endure  which  is 
stained  by  blood,"  and  at  Mobile  that  "we  will 
never  condone  iniquity  because  it  is  most  con- 
venient to  do  so."  At  the  very  time  he  uttered 
those  lofty  words,  the  leaders  and  lieutenants  of 
the  faction  which  he  was  actively  supporting 
were  shooting  their  prisoners  in  cold  blood  by 
scores  after  each  engagement,  were  tortur- 
ing men  reputed  to  be  rich,  were  driving 
hundreds  of  peaceful  people  from  their 
homes,  were  looting  and  defiling  churches  and 
treating  ecclesiastics  and  religious  women  with 
every  species  of  abominable  infamy,  from  mur- 
der and  rape  down.  In  other  words,  at  the  very 
time  that  the  President  was  stating  that  "no- 
where on  this  hemisphere  can  any  government 



endure  which  is  stained  by  blood,"  he  was  ac- 
tively engaged  in  helping  install  in  power  a  gov- 
ernment which  was  not  only  stained  by  blood 
but  stained  by  much  worse  than  blood.  At  the 
very  time  that  he  was  announcing  that  he  would 
"never  condone  iniquity  because  it  was  conven- 
ient to  do  so,"  he  was  not  merely  condoning  but 
openly  assisting  iniquity  and  installing  in 
power  a  set  of  men  whose  actions  were  those  of 
ferocious  barbarians. 

Remember  that  I  am  not  engaged  in  defending 
the  factional  opponents  of  these  victorious 
wrong-doers.  There  is  not  evidence  sufficient  to 
decide  which  of  the  many  factions  behaved  worst. 
But  there  is  ample  material  to  decide  that  they 
all  behaved  atrociously.  Apparently  the  Admin- 
istration took  the  ground  that  inasmuch  as  Mr. 
Huerta  and  his  followers  were  bad  men,  it  was 
our  duty  to  condone  the  evil  committed  by  their 
opponents.  Father  R.  H.  Tierney,  of  New  York 
City,  an  entirely  responsible  man,  informs  me 
that  when  (in  company  with  two  other  gentlemen 
whose  names  he  gives  me)  he  called  upon  Mr. 
Bryan  to  bring  to  his  attention  the  abominable 
outrages  committed  on  certain  nuns  by  the  fol- 
lowers of  Carranza  and  Villa,  Mr.  Bryan  in- 
formed Father  Tierney  that  he  had  information 
that  "the  followers  of  Huerta  had  committed  sim- 
ilar outrages  on  two  American  women  from 



Iowa!"  (This  sentence  has  been  read  to  Father 
Tierney,  who  states  that  it  describes  the  inter- 
view with  exactness.  The  original  of  the  affida- 
vits herein  quoted  are  in  the  possession  of  Father 
Tierney,  59  East  Eighty-third  street,  New  York 
City,  and  Father  Kelly,  and  will  be  shown  by 
them  to  any  reputable  person.)  Apparently  Mr. 
Bryan  believed  this  disposed  of  the  situation  and 
relieved  the  revolutionaries  of  blame. 

Surely,  it  ought  not  to  be  necessary  to  say  that 
if  the  facts  as  thus  stated  to  and  by  Mr.  Bryan 
were  true  (and  if  there  was  any  doubt  immediate 
investigation  as  to  their  truth  by  the  government 
was  demanded),  then  the  way  to  get  justice  was 
not  by  treating  one  infamy  as  wiping  out  the 
other  but  by  exacting  the  sternest  retribution  for 
both  and  effectively  providing  against  the  repe- 
tition of  either.  Even  assuming  for  the  moment 
that  the  attitude  of  the  Administration  had  not  so 
committed  the  government  that  it  was  its  duty  to 
interfere  on  behalf  of  the  nuns  thus  outraged, 
Mr.  Bryan's  statement  to  Father  Tierney  shows 
almost  incredible  callousness  on  his  part  to  the 
most  dreadful  type  of  suffering,  to  acts  far  worse 
than  the  mere  murder  of  any  man.  It  seems  lit- 
erally impossible  that  any  representative  of  the 
American  government  in  high  office  could  fail  to 
be  stirred  to  his  depths  by  such  wrong,  or  could 
have  failed  to  insist  on  the  immediate  and  con- 



dign  punishment  of  the  wrong-doers  and  on  the 
amplest  safeguarding  against  all  possible  repe- 
tition of  the  wrong.  Apparently  the  only  way 
in  which  it  occurred  to  Mr.  Bryan  to  take  any 
action  against  the  faction  whose  adherents  had 
perpetrated  these  hideous  wrongs  on  the  two 
American  women  was  by  encouraging  another 
faction  which  he  must  have  known  in  advance 
and  certainly  did  know  after  the  event  would 
commit  and  had  committed  wrongs  equally 

I  have  before  me  a  copy  of  El  Heraldo  de 
Toluca  of  September  I3th,  1914.  It  contains  a 
manifesto  on  behalf  of  the  victorious  revolution- 
aries of  the  party  of  Messrs.  Carranza  and  Villa, 
dealing  with  the  "conditions  under  which  the  Ro- 
man Worship  will  have  to  be  practiced."  (I 
translate  into  English.)  Among  the  preambles 
are  the  following:  I,  that  the  ministers  of  the 
Catholic  Worship  circulate  doctrines  which  are 
not  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  the  true 
Christ;  2,  that  on  account  of  the  learning  that 
these  ministers  have  acquired  they  cannot  in  the 
minds  of  those  who  possess  equal  or  greater 
learning  (but  who  differ  from  them  in  opinion) 
pass  as  sincere  believers  in  the  doctrines  they 
preach  and  that  they  thereby  exploit  the  ignor- 
ance of  the  ignorant  masses ;  3,  that  inasmuch  as 
this  conduct  harms  people  by  frightening  them 


with  the  fear  of  eternal  punishment  and  thereby 
tends  to  make  them  subservient  to  the  priesthood 
and  that  inasmuch  as  all  kinds  of  people  from 
workmen  to  capitalists  give  too  much  money  to 
the  churches  and  because  of  various  other  similar 
facts,  the  decree  in  question  is  promulgated. 

This  decree  includes  the  forbidding  "of  any 
sermons  which  will  encourage  fanaticism;"  the 
proscribing  of  any  fasts  or  similar  practices ;  the 
prohibition  of  any  money  being  paid  for  chris- 
tenings, marriages  or  other  matters;  the  prohi- 
bition of  the  soliciting  of  contributions  (that  is, 
the  passing  of  the  plate) ;  the  prohibition  of  cele- 
bration of  masses  for  the  dead  or  the  celebration 
of  more  than  two  masses  a  week ;  the  prohibition 
of  confession  and  with  this  object  in  view  the 
closing  of  the  churches  excepting  once  a  week 
at  the  hour  of  the  masses;  and,  finally,  the  pro- 
hibition of  more  than  one  priest  living  in  Toluca 
and  the  requirement  that  he,  when  he  walks  in 
the  streets,  shall  be  dressed  absolutely  as  a  ci- 
vilian without  anything  in  his  costume  revealing 
the  fact  that  he  is  a  minister.  In  order  to  be  per- 
mitted to  exercise  the  functions  thus  limited,  the 
priest  is  required  to  affix  his  signature  of  accept- 
ance to  the  foregoing  regulations. 

Now,  in  various  South  American  countries 
there  have  been  bitter  contests  between  the  Cler- 
icals and  the  anti-Clericals  and  again  and  again 



the  extremists  of  each  side  have  taken  positions 
which  in  the  eyes  of  sensible  Americans  of  all 
religious  creeds  are  intolerable.  There  are  in 
our  own  country  individuals  who  sincerely  believe 
that  the  Masons  or  the  Knights  of  Columbus,  or 
the  members  of  the  Junior  Order  of  American 
Mechanics,  or  the  Catholic  Church  or  the  Metho- 
dist Church  or  the  Ethical  Culture  Society,  rep- 
resent what  is  all  wrong.  There  are  sincere  men 
in  the  United  States  who  by  argument  desire  to 
convince  their  fellows  belonging  to  any  one  of  the 
bodies  above  mentioned  (and  to  any  one  of  many 
others)  that  they  are  mistaken,  either  when  they 
go  to  church  or  when  they  do  not  go  to  church, 
when  they  "preach  sermons  of  a  fanatical  type" 
or  inveigh  against  "sermons  of  a  fanatical  type," 
when  they  put  money  in  the  plate  to  help  support 
a  church  or  when  they  refuse  to  support  a  church, 
when  they  join  secret  societies  or  sit  on  the 
mourners'  bench  or  practise  confession.  Accord- 
ing to  our  ideas,  all  men  have  an  absolute  right 
to  favor  or  oppose  any  of  these  practices.  But, 
according  to  our  ideas,  no  men  have  any  right  to 
endeavor  to  make  the  government  either  favor 
or  oppose  them.  According  to  our  ideas,  we 
should  emphatically  disapprove  of  any  action  in 
any  Spanish- American  country  which  is  designed 
to  oppress  either  Catholics  or  Protestants,  either 
Masons  or  anti-Masons,  either  Liberals  or  Cler- 



icals,  or  to  interfere  with  religious  liberty, 
whether  by  intolerance  exercised  for  or  against 
any  religious  creed,  or  by  people  who  do  or  do 
not  believe  in  any  religious  creed. 

I  hold  that  these  should  be  our  sympathies. 
But  I  emphatically  hold  that  it  is  not  the  duty 
of  this  government  to  try  to  make  other  countries 
act  in  accordance  with  these  sympathies,  and, 
above  all,  not  the  duty  of  the  government  to  help 
some  other  government  which  acts  against  these 
great  principles  with  which  we  sympathize. 
Messrs.  Wilson  and  Bryan  by  their  actions  have 
assumed  a  certain  undoubted  responsibility  for 
the  behavior  of  the  victorious  faction  in  Mexico 
which  has  just  taken  the  kind  of  stand  indicated 
in  the  proclamation  above  quoted;  a  stand,  of 
course,  hostile  to  every  principle  of  real  religious 
liberty,  a  stand  which  if  applied  logically  would 
mean  that  no  minister  of  any  church  could  in 
public  wear  a  high-cut  waistcoat  or  perhaps  even 
a  black  frock-coat,  and  which  would  put  a  stop 
even  to  such  common-place  actions  as  the  passing 
of  the  plate  in  any  church  to  encourage  home 

But  this  attitude  is  only  one  of  the  offences 
committed.  Catholic  schools  almost  everywhere 
in  Mexico  have  been  closed,  institutions  of  learn- 
ing sacked  and  libraries  and  astronomical  and 
other  machinery  destroyed,  the  priests  and  nuns 



expelled  by  hundreds  and  some  of  the  priests 
killed  and  some  of  the  nuns  outraged.  Arch- 
bishop Blenk  of  New  Orleans,  Father  Tierney, 
editor  of  America,  Father  Kelly,  president  of 
the  Catholic  Church  Extension  Society,  Mr.  Pe- 
try,  one  of  the  directors  of  the  Catholic  Church 
Extension  Society,  and  a  Mexican  bishop  whose 
name  I  do  not  give  because  it  might  involve  him 
in  trouble,  came  to  see  me  at  my  house;  and  in 
Chicago  I  saw  other  priests  and  refugees  from 
Mexico,  both  priests,  nuns  and  lay  brothers.  The 
statements  and  affidavits,  submitted  to  me  in  the 
original  and  copies  of  which  I  have  before  me 
as  I  write,  set  forth  conditions  which  are  liter- 
ally appalling  and  for  which,  be  it  remembered, 
the  actions  of  Messrs.  Wilson  and  Bryan  have 
made  this  country  partly  responsible. 

For  example,  Archbishop  Blenk  submitted  to 
me  an  affidavit  by  the  prioress  of  the  Bare-footed 
Carmelite  Nuns  of  the  Convent  of  Queretaro. 
This  sets  forth  from  the  personal  knowledge  of 
the  prioress  how  the  churches  have  been  pro- 
faned by  soldiers  entering  them  on  horseback, 
breaking  statues,  trampling  on  relics  and  scatter- 
ing on  the  floor  the  Sacred  Hosts  and  even  throw- 
ing them  into  the  horses'  feed;  how  in  some 
churches  the  revolutionaries  have  offered  mock 
masses  and  have  in  other  ways,  some  of  them  too 
repulsive  and  loathsome  to  mention,  behaved  pre- 


cisely  as  the  Red  Terrorists  of  the  French  Revo- 
lution behaved  in  the  churches  of  Paris ;  how,  for 
example,  St.  Anthony's  Church  at  Aguascali- 
entes  has  been  made  into  a  legislative  hall  and 
the  Church  of  St.  Joseph  at  Queretaro  and  the 
great  convent  of  the  Carmelites  and  the  lyceum 
of  the  Christian  Brothers  all  have  been  confisca- 
ted; how  the  church  property  has  been  seques- 
tered and  the  archives  burned  and  the  men  and 
women  in  the  cloistered  communities  expelled 
without  being  allowed  to  take  even  an  extra  suit 
of  clothes  or  a  book  of  prayer. 

The  prioress  states  that  she  has  herself  seen 
in  Mexico  City  nuns  who  have  been  "victims  of 
the  passions  of  the  revolutionary  soldiers,"  and 
some  whom  she  found  in  their  own  homes,  others 
in  hospitals  and  in  maternity  houses,  who  in  con- 
sequence are  about  to  be  delivered  of  children. 
She  deposes:  "I  have  seen  soldiers  dressed  up 
in  chasubles,  stoles,  maniples  and  cinctures,  with 
copes  and  altar  linen,  and  their  women  dressed  up 
in  albs,  surplices,  and  corporals  used  as  handker- 
chiefs." She  has  seen  the  sacred  vessels  pro- 
faned in  a  thousand  ways.  She  describes  meet- 
ing seven  nuns  who  had  been  outraged,  whom  she 
directed  to  a  maternity  house,  and  who  had  aban- 
doned themselves  to  utter  despair,  saying  "that 
they  were  already  damned  and  abandoned  by 
God  and  they  cursed  the  hour  of  their  religious 



profession."  She  describes  how  she  escaped 
from  Quaretaro  with  nuns  who  had  been  obliged 
to  hide  in  private  houses  in  order  to  escape  being 
taken  to  the  barracks  by  the  soldiers.  She  de- 
scribes how  she  had  daily  to  beg  the  food  neces- 
sary to  sustain  the  twenty-four  sisters  with 
whom  she  escaped. 

In  Chicago  I  saw  a  French  priest,  Father  Dom- 
inic Fournier,  of  the  Congregation  of  the  Pas- 
sion, who  had  just  escaped  from  Mexico  with  two 
young  Spanish  students  for  the  priesthood.  He 
had  escaped  from  the  City  of  Toluca  with  noth- 
ing whatever,  not  even  a  Rosary.  He  and  the 
two  novices  described  to  me  their  experience  in 
Toluca.  The  churches  and  religious  houses  were 
sacked  and  confiscated  and  the  soldiers  and  their 
women  indulged  in  orgies  before  and  around  the 
altars.  One  of  the  lay  brothers  named  Mariano 
Gonzales  tried  to  save  some  of  the  things  from 
the  church.  The  revolutionists  seized  him  and 
accused  him  of  robbing,  the  state.  He  was  shot 
by  a  file  of  soldiers  on  August  22nd,  1914,  and  his 
dead  body  was  left  all  day  long  in  the  court  in 
which  Father  Fournier  and  the  other  priests  and 
the  two  novices  who  spoke  to  me  and  their  asso- 
ciates were  confined.  They  were  kept  in  prison 
sixteen  days  and  then  allowed  to  go  with  nothing 
but  what  they  .had  on. 

I  have  seen  the  original  of  and  have  in  my  pos- 


session  a  translation  of  a  letter  written  on  Octo- 
ber 24th  by  a  young  girl  of  Toluca  to  her  pastor 
who  had  been  exiled.  She  described  how  the 
bishop  had  been  heavily  fined  and  exiled.  She 
describes  how  the  clubs  of  boys  and  girls  for 
whom  she  had  been  working  had  been  broken  up, 
but  how  some  of  the  boys  to  whom  they  used  to 
give  breakfast  on  Sunday  mornings  still  occa- 
sionally come  to  see  them;  and  she  asks  advice 
how  to  keep  these  clubs  of  the  poor  together.  But 
the  dreadful  and  pathetic  part  of  the  letter  is  con- 
tained in  the  following  sentence:  "Now  I  will 
ask  you  a  question.  Suppose  some  one  falls  into 
the  power  of  the  Zapatistas.  Would  it  be  better 
for  her  to  take  her  own  life  rather  than  allow 
them  to  do  their  will  and  what  they  are  accus- 
tomed to  do?  As  I  never  thought  such  a  thing 
could  happen,  I  did  not  ask  you  before  about  it, 
but  now  I  see  it  is  quite  possible.  If  we  had  not 
our  good  God  in  whom  we  trust,  I  think  we  would 
give  way  to  despair." 

In  other  words,  this  girl  who  had  been  engaged 
in  charitable  work  in  connection  with  the  church 
asks  her  pastor  whether  she  is  permitted  to  com- 
mit suicide  in  order  to  avoid  the  outrages  to 
which  so  many  hundreds  of  Mexican  women,  so 
many  scores  of  nuns,  have  been  exposed  in  the 
last  few  months.  I  cannot  imagine  any  man  of 
whatever  creed — or  of  no  creed — reading  this  let- 



ter  without  his  blood  tingling  with  horror  and 
anger;  and  we  Americans  should  bear  in  mind 
the  fact  that  the  actions  of  President  Wilson  and 
Secretary  Bryan  in  supporting  the  Villistas  (un- 
til President  Wilson  suddenly  swapped  bandits 
and  supported  the  Carranzistas)  have  made  us 
partly  responsible  for  such  outrages. 

I  have  been  given  and  shown  letters  from  refu- 
gees in  Galveston,  in  Corpus  Christi,  in  San  An- 
tonio and  Havana.  These  refugees  include  seven 
archbishops,  six  bishops,  some  hundreds  of 
priests,  and  at  least  three  hundred  nuns.  Most 
of  these  bishops  and  priests  had  been  put  in  jail 
or  in  the  penitentiary  or  otherwise  confined  and 
maltreated.  Two-thirds  of  the  institutions  of 
higher  learning  in  Mexico  have  been  confiscated 
and  more  or  less  completely  destroyed  and  a  large 
part  of  the  ordinary  educational  institutions  have 
been  treated  in  similar  fashion. 

Many  of  the  affidavits  before  me  recite  tortures 
so  dreadful  that  I  am  unwilling  to  put  them  in 
print.  It  would  be  tedious  to  recite  all  the  facts 
set  forth  in  these  affidavits.  For  instance,  there 
is  one,  by  Daniel  R.  Loweree,  a  priest  of  the  dio- 
cese of  Guadalajara,  the  son  of  an  American  fa- 
ther, and  librarian  of  the  Seminary  and  pro- 
fessor of  chemistry.  He  describes  what  took 
place  in  Guadalajara.  On  July  2ist,  about  one 
hundred  priests  from  the  city  and  country  round 



about  were  put  in  the  jail,  while  the  cathedral 
was  used  as  a  barracks.  In  the  affidavit  of  Canon 
Jose  Maria  Vela,  of  the  Cathedral  of  Zacatecas, 
he  sets  forth  how  the  constitutionalists  shot  a 
priest  named  Velarde,  how  twenty-three  priests 
were  gathered  together  and  under  the  orders  of 
General  Villa  required  to  produce  one  million 
pesos  within  twenty-four  hours,  under  penalty 
of  being  shot.  A  committee  of  the  priests  went 
out  through  the  city  begging  from  house  to  house 
and  accepting  even  pennies  from  the  children.  A 
girl  was  forcibly  violated  by  one  of  the  soldiers 
in  the  room  adjoining  that  in  which  these  priests 
were  kept.  Finally,  the  citizens  raised  a  couple 
of  hundred  thousand  pesos  and  the  priests  were 
released  and  allowed  to  flee  without  any  of  their 
belongings.  Seventeen  of  the  fleeing  priests  are 
now  in  El  Paso  and  their  names  are  given  in  the 
document  and  those  of  some  of  them  signed  to  an 
accompanying  document. 

In  an  affidavit  by  the  Reverend  Michael  Ku- 
bicza,  of  the  Society  of  Jesus,  whose  father  was 
a  Hungarian  physician,  he  describes  how  he  was 
tortured  in  order  to  make  him  give  up  money.  A 
soldier  nicknamed  Baca,  in  the  presence  of 
Colonel  Fierro,  put  a  horsehair  rope  around  his 
neck  and  choked  him  until  he  became  unconscious. 
When  he  came  to,  Baca  fired  a  revolver  near 
his  head  and  commanded  him  to  give  up  and  tell 



him  where  the  Jesuit  treasures  were  buried.  On 
answering  that  there  were  none,  he  was  again 
choked  until  he  was  unconscious,  and  this  was 
repeated  a  third  time.  The  affidavit  describes  at 
length  some  of  the  sufferings  of  the  priests  in 

All  kinds  of  other  affidavits  have  been  sub- 
mitted to  me,  dealing  with  torture  and  murder, 
as,  for  example,  the  killing  of  Father  Alba,  the 
parish  priest  of  Cabra,  the  killing  of  the  parish 
priest  and  vicar  at  Tula,  the  killing  of  the  chap- 
lain and  rector  and  vice-president  of  the  Chris- 
tian Brothers'  College,  etc.,  etc. 

The  one  feature  in  the  events  narrated  to  me 
and  set  forth  in  the  affidavits  to  me  which  can 
give  any  American  the  least  satisfaction  is  the 
statement  of  the  kindness  with  which  the  unfor- 
tunate refugees  had  been  treated  in  Vera  Cruz 
by  the  officers  and  men  of  the  Army  and  Navy, 
particular  mention  being  made  of  General 

What  I  have  above  stated  is  but  a  small  part 
of  the  immense  mass  of  facts  available  to  the 
President  (and  Mr.  Bryan)  had  they  cared  to 
examine  them.  They  relate  to  outrages  on  Cath- 
olics. This  is  merely  because  the  enormous  ma- 
jority of  the  religious  people  of  Mexico  are  Cath- 
olics. I  should  set  them  forth  just  as  minutely 
if  they  had  been  inflicted  by  Catholics  on  Free- 


thinkers  or  Protestants  or  Masons — I  am  myself 
both  a  Protestant  and  a  Mason  and  I  claim  and 
exercise  the  right  of  full  liberty  of  thought. 
Even  if  we  had  no  responsibility  for  them,  I 
nevertheless  fail  to  see  how  any  American  could 
read  the  account  of  them  without  a  feeling  of 
burning  indignation.  As  things  actually  are, 
shame  must  be  mingled  with  our  indignation. 
The  action  of  the  President  (and  Mr.  Bryan)  has 
been  such  as  to  make  this  country  partly  respon- 
sible for  the  frightful  wrongs  that  have  been 
committed  on  the  Mexicans  themselves.  For  the 
wrongs  committed  on  Americans,  and  neither 
prevented  nor  redressed,  our  Government  is  not 
merely  partly,  but  wholly,  responsible. 

A  year  ago  I  was  shown  a  letter  from  Naco, 
Arizona,  written  by  a  railway  engineer  on 
January  10,  1915.  He  mentions  that  five 
persons  had  been  killed  and  forty-seven  wounded 
on  the  American  side  of  the  boundary  line 
by  stray  bullets  shot  by  the  Mexicans,  and 
adds:  "My  wife  was  shot  in  the  neck  in  our 
house,  six  hundred  yards  from  the  line,  when 
she  was  reading.  I  would  rather  a  thousand 
times  be  with  Emperor  Bill  than  an  American 
citizen  under  such  conditions."  I  have  just  been 
visited  by  a  Boer  gentleman,  who  has  been  resi- 
dent in  Mexico  for  a  dozen  years ;  after  the  Boer 
War  he  was  exiled  from  Cape  Colony  and  his 



property  confiscated;  but  in  Mexico  he  does  not 
claim  to  be  an  American ;  he  clings  eagerly  to  his 
British  citizenship;  for  England,  like  Germany 
and  France,  does  try  to  protect  her  citizens, 
whereas  bitter  experience  has  taught  the  average 
American  citizen  in  Mexico  that  in  his  case,  rob- 
bery and  murder  will  bring  no  protest  from  his 
home  government. 

At  this  moment  the  Administration  is  protest- 
ing about  the  seizure  of  cotton,  copper  and  rub- 
ber in  ships  owned  by  American  merchants  and 
destined  for  one  of  the  belligerent  powers  in 
Europe.  It  is  standing  strongly  for  the  property 
right  of  the  man  who  wishes  to  sell  his  goods  to 
foreigners  engaged  in  war.  It  at  one  time  urged 
passage  of  a  law  to  let  it  purchase  the  ships  of 
one  of  the  powers  engaged  in  war,  which  ships 
had  been  interned  in  our  waters;  a  purchase 
which  would  have  been  to  the  pecuniary  advan- 
tage of  certain  banking  and  business  firms,  and 
to  the  pecuniary  advantage  of  the  power  in  ques- 
tion, but  which  might  very  well  have  embroiled 
us  with  the  nations  now  at  war  with  this  power ; 
so  that  the  proposed  law  would  have  been  very 

Yet  while  thus  endeavoring  to  serve,  some- 
times properly  and  sometimes  improperly,  the  in- 
terests of  the  business  men  which  have  been  hurt 
by  this  war,  the  Administration  pays  not  the 



smallest  attention  to  the  cases  of  the  correspond- 
ing business  men — certainly  no  less  deserving — 
who  have  suffered  so -terribly  in  Mexico;  and 
it  pays  no  attention  whatever  to  the  cases  of 
American  citizens  of  humble  position  and  small 
means,  men,  women  and  children,  who  have  lost 
life  or  limb,  or  all  their  few  worldly  goods,  dur- 
ing the  past  two  years  on  the  Mexican  border  and 
within  Mexico  itself. 

The  El  Paso  Morning  Times  of  December  26, 
1914,  a  Democratic  paper  supporting  President 
Wilson,  stated  that  in  the  firing  by  Mexican  sol- 
diers across  the  border  "fully  fifty  persons,  in- 
cluding American  soldiers,"  were  wounded.  A 
former  district-attorney  of  New  Mexico  writes 
me  that  the  exact  number  was  fifty-seven,  some 
of  whom  were  killed,  and  that  the  men  shot  in- 
cluded American  soldiers  walking  their  beats  as 
sentries.  This  information  was  obtained  from 
the  coroner  at  Naco.  From  the  same  source  I 
am  informed  that  before  President  Wilson  came 
into  power,  eighteen  American  citizens  were 
killed  and  wounded  in  like  manner  at  El  Paso. 

Perhaps  the  most  extraordinary  feature  of  the 
whole  Naco  affair  is  that  at  that  point  there  is 
an  open  port  of  entry.  The  arms  and  ammuni- 
tion used  to  kill  American  women  and  children, 
and  American  soldiers,  were  openly  purchased  in 
the  United  States  and  openly  delivered  through 



a  port  of  entry  to  the  warring  factions  in  Mex- 
ico. An  American  army  officer  whose  name,  of 
course,  I  cannot  give,  who  has  been  serving  along 
the  Mexican  border,  informs  me  that,  among  the 
enlisted  men,  man  after  man,  when  his  enlist- 
ment ran  out,  refused  to  re-enlist  because  the 
orders  of  the  Administration  were  that  when 
fired  at,  on  American  soil,  by  Mexicans,  he  was 
not  to  return  the  fire.  I  speak  of  what  I  know 
personally  when  I  say  that  this  action  by  the  Ad- 
ministration has  not  only  deeply  damaged  us  in 
the  eyes  of  the  Mexican  people,  but  is  a  frightful 
source  of  demoralization  among  the  American 
troops.  It  is  literally  incomprehensible  to  me 
that  any  American  who  knows  the  truth  can  be 
willing  to  tolerate  such  a  condition  of  affairs. 

Surely  our  people  should  ponder  these  facts. 
Here  are  American  private  citizens,  men,  women 
and  children,  and  American  soldiers,  all  on 
American  soil,  scores  of  whom  have  been  killed 
or  wounded  by  bullets  shot  across  the  line.  Some 
of  the  killing  has  been  done  through  sheer  care- 
lessness and  contemptuous  indifference  for  our 
rights;. some  has  been  done  maliciously  and  of 
purpose;  and  yet  President  Wilson's  Adminis- 
tration has  failed  to  take  any  action.  The  cul- 
mination came  in  the  month  of  January  of  the 
present  year  1916,  when  sixteen  Americans  were 
taken  from  a  train  in  the  state  of  Chihuahua  and 



murdered  premeditatedly  and  in  cold  blood. 
Had  Mr.  Wilson  had  in  him  one  faint  spark  of 
the  courage  of  Andrew  Jackson  no  Mexican 
would  have  dared  even  think  of  such  action. 
The  murder  of  these  Americans  was  the  direct 
result  of  President  Wilson's  recognition  of  Car- 
ranza's  government  for  otherwise  they  would  not 
have  been  in  Mexico,  and  their  murderers  felt 
they  could  act  with  impunity  because  for  three 
years  President  Wilson  had  shown  again  and 
again  that  American  citizens  could  be  murdered, 
and  the  American  flag  outraged,  without  hin- 
drance from  him.  The  record  of  the  preceding 
Administration  as  regards  Mexico  was  not  a 
pleasant  object  of  contemplation  for  Americans 
brought  up  to  honor  the  flag;  but  the  present 
Administration  has  made  Americans  in  or  near 
Mexico  feel  that  they  have  no  flag  to  honor. 

Be  it  remembered  also  that  there  was  not  the 
slightest  difficulty  in  stopping  the  particular  kind 
of  flagrant  outrage  that  occurred  along  the  bor- 
der. There  were  difficulties  connected  with  other 
features  of  possible  policy  in  Mexico,  but  there 
never  has  been  the  slightest  difficulty  as  regards 
this  particular  matter.  At  any  moment  since, 
some  five  years  ago,  the  revolution  began,  this 
type  of  outrage  could  have  been  stopped  within 
twenty- four  hours.  It  can  be  stopped  over  night. 
All  that  is  necessary  is  to  notify  the  Mexican  au- 



thorities  that  if  there  is  any  repetition  of  such 
action  at  any  point,  the  American  troops  will 
promptly  be  sent  over  to  the  locality  where  the 
outrage  occurs  and  will  drive  all  the  contestants 
to  beyond  extreme  rifle  range  of  the  border,  and 
will  exact  immediate  punishment  for  any  man  or 
party  violating  the  measures  which  the  American 
officer  in  charge  deems  it  necessary  to  take  to 
protect  our  peaceable  citizens  within  our  own 
borders.  It  is  literally  incomprehensible  that  or- 
ders such  as  this  should  not  have  been  issued 
years  ago. 

I  speak  of  the  cases  of  this  type  because  they 
are  so  flagrant;  because  there  can  be  no  discus- 
sion about  them  and  no  defence  of  them  which 
can  puzzle  any  man  of  reasonable  intelligence. 
But  the  wrongs  thus  committed  constitute  only 
the  tiniest  fraction  of  the  innumerable  wrongs 
committed  upon  Americans  and  upon  foreigners 
of  every  nationality  in  the  course  of  the  five 
years  of  anarchy  during  which  Mexico  has  been 
torn  to  pieces  by  various  groups  of  banditti.  The 
worst  of  these  banditti  have  been  more  or  less 
actively  helped  by  the  present  Administration, 
and  during  the  entire  five  years,  but  notably  dur- 
ing the  last  three  years,  they  have  all  of  them 
been  permitted  to  prey  with  impunity  upon  the 
persons  and  the  property  of  Americans  and  of 
other  foreigners  in  Mexico. 



The  Administration  should  be  condemned  for 
its  policy  in  Mexico ;  but  let  us  be  frank  with  our- 
selves, we  Americans,  and  say  the  condemnation 
should  be  visited  upon  us  as  a  nation,  for  we  have 
had  the  amplest  knowledge  of  all  that  has  hap- 
pened. It  has  been  put  before  us  in  detail  offi- 
cially. Yet  we  have  declined  to  make  our  indig- 
nation felt  by  President  Wilson,  and  by  Mr. 
Bryan  (when  Mr.  Bryan  was  in  office).  Messrs. 
Wilson  and  Bryan  not  merely  sat  supine,  but 
actually  encouraged  the  Mexican  leaders  who 
were  responsible  for  the  murder  of  American 
men  and  the  outraging  of  American  women. 
Since  Mr.  Bryan  left  office,  President  Wilson  has 
continued  the  policy  unchanged,  and  his  is  the 
sole  responsibility  for  the  innumerable  murders 
and  outrages  that  have  since  occurred;  murders 
and  outrages  committed  by  Carranzistas  and 
Villistas  alike. 

I  wish  that  every  American  citizen  would  read 
the  speech  of  Senator  Albert  B.  Fall,  of  New 
Mexico,  delivered  in  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States  on  March  9,  1914.  Not  only  have  Senator 
Fall's  statements  been  left  unanswered,  but  no 
adequate  attempt  has  even  been  made  to  answer 
them.  One  or  two  Democratic  Senators  have 
striven  to  answer  similar  statements  by  the  as- 
sertion that  things  as  bad  were  permitted  under 
the  Administration  of  President  Taft.  But  Sen- 



ator  Fall's  speech  was  open  to  no  such  rejoinder, 
for  he  impartially  cited  outrages  committed  prior 
to  the  advent  and  subsequent  to  the  advent  of  the 
present  Administration  to  power. 

The  Senate  partially  performed  its  duty.  On 
April  20,  1913,  it  sent  to  the  President  a  formally 
worded  request  for  information  as  to  the  number 
of  Americans  killed  in  Mexico,  the  number  driven 
out  of  that  country  and  as  to  what  steps  had  been 
taken  to  obtain  justice.  No  answer  whatever 
was  made  to  this  request,  and  it  was  repeated  in 
the  following  July.  Then  the  President  an- 
swered, declining  to  give  the  information  on  the 
ground  that  it  was  not  compatible  with  the  pub- 
lic interest.  If  the  President  had  then  had  a  well- 
thought-out  policy  which  he  intended  forthwith 
to  apply  for  remedying  the  conditions  of  affairs, 
such  an  answer  might  have  been  proper.  But,  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  events  have  shown  that  he  had 
no  policy  whatever,  save  in  so  far  as  vacillating 
inability  to  do  anything  positive  may  be  called  a 
policy.  Two  years  and  a  half  have  passed  since 
this  answer  was  returned  to  the  Senate ;  murder 
and  spoliation  have  continued  unchecked;  and 
still  not  one  action  has  been  taken  by  the  present 
Administration  to  right  the  fearful  wrongs 
that  have  been  committed,  and  still  the  public 
has  never  been  shown  the  material  in  possession 
of  the  State  Department. 



The  following  statements  are  contained  in  Sen- 
ator Fall's  speech.  They  form  but  a  small  pro- 
portion of  the  cases  that  have  been  brought  to 
my  own  attention.  But  they  are  officially  stated 
by  Senator  Fall.  President  Wilson  and  Secre- 
tary Bryan  had  it  in  their  power,  when  these 
statements  were  made  over  two  years  ago,  at  once 
to  find  out  whether  or  not  they  were  well  founded. 
It  was  their  duty  immediately  to  investigate  every 
case  thus  specifically  mentioned  by  Senator  Fall 
and  either  to  take  action  or  to  furnish  to  the  Sen- 
ate and  the  people  refutation  of  the  .charges. 
They  did  nothing  whatsoever.  They  dared  not 
do  anything  whatsoever. 

Senator  Fall  recites  extracts  from  the  report 
of  W.  W.  Suit,  the  chief  of  the  Order  of  Railway 
Conductors  in  the  republic  of  Mexico;  the  state- 
ment of  Conductor  T.  J.  O'Fallon ;  the  affidavits 
of  Conductor  J.  S.  McCranie  and  Engineer  J.  D. 
Kennedy,  of  August  3,  1913;  all  reciting  in  de- 
tail the  outrages  committed  in  1911,  which  re- 
sulted in  500  American  railroad  men  being  driven 
from  Mexico.  The  chief  of  the  Order  of  Rail- 
way Conductors  remarks  very  pertinently, 
"Every  American  who  has  been  in  touch  with  the 
situation  and  every  citizen  of  other  civilized  coun- 
tries sees  the  necessity  of  adding  the  Big  Stick 
to  the  Monroe  Doctrine,"  which  is  merely  a  pic- 
turesquely idiomatic  way  of  stating  the  common- 



sense  truth  that  unless  resolute  purpose  and  po- 
tential force  are  put  back  of  every  such  doctrine 
or  declaration  of  foreign  policy,  our  enunciation 
of  the  doctrine  or  declaration  excites  mere  de- 

These  particular  infamies  complained  of  here, 
like  not  a  few  to  which  Senator  Fall  calls  atten- 
tion, were  committed  prior  to  Mr.  Wilson's  com- 
ing to  power;  but  Mr.  Wilson  has  never  sought 
redress  for  them  or  for  the  outrages  committed 
since  he  has  been  in  power.  Senator  Fall,  for  in- 
stance, asks,  "What  has  been  done  to  investigate 
the  death  of  Mrs.  Anderson,  which  occurred  in 
Chihuahua  on  June  22,  1911?  Not  under  this 
Administration.  This  is  no  partisan  question 
and  I  think  I  will  be  acquitted  of  any  attempt  to 
take  any  possible  partisan  or  political  advantage 
in  what  I  shall  say  as  to  the  last  Administration 
and  this  Administration;  but  I  should  like  to 
know  whether  there  has  been  any  attempt  what- 
soever made  to  investigate  the  case  to  which  I 
have  just  referred." 

He  then  recites  the  facts.  Mrs.  Anderson  was 
a  poor  woman,  living  with  her  little  daughter  of 
thirteen  and  her  little  boy  of  seven  in  their  house. 
The  soldiers  of  Madero's  army  entered  the  house 
and  demanded  that  she  should  cook  for  them. 
She  was  shot,  fell  to  the  ground,  compelled  to  rise 
from  the  ground  and  continue  to  cook,  although 



bleeding  to  death ;  and  at  the  same  time  her  little 
daughter,  thirteen  years  old,  was  outraged  in  her 
presence.  The  boy  of  a  neighbor,  running  to 
their  assistance,  was  shot  at  the  door  of  the  house 
and  killed.  The  American  colonists,  not  being  at 
that  time  as  intimidated  as  they  have  since  been, 
procured  the  arrest  of  the  men  charged  with  this 
crime.  They  were  convicted,  were  sent  for  six 
months  to  jail,  and  then  were  turned  loose  upon 
the  community.  The  woman  died. 

A  little  American  girl  of  twelve,  Mabel  Rich- 
ardson, was  assailed  seventeen  miles  from  where 
this  first  outrage  occurred.  Her  assailants  were 
never  punished;  and  Senator  Fall  in  his  speech 
recited  the  fact  that  not  one  word,  not  one  line  of 
protest  ever  proceeded  from  our  Government  in 
the  matter,  although  these  were  among  the  cases 
to  which  he  referred  in  his  speech  in  the  Senate 
on  July  22,  1912. 

James  W.  Harvey  was  killed  in  the  state  of 
Chihuahua  in  May,  1912. 

William  Adams,  a  citizen  of  Senator  Fall's 
own  state,  was  murdered  at  about  the  same  time, 
and  not  an  effort  was  made  by  the  Government 
to  punish  the  perpetrator  of  the  outrage. 

In  the  case  of  A.  J.  Fountain,  who  was  killed, 
the  Government  did  act,  and  its  action  was  worse 
than  inaction.  It  notified  the  man  responsible 
for  the  murder  that  American  citizens  must  not 



be  killed.  This  man,  named  Salazar,  serving  un- 
der Madero,  disregarded  the  notice  sent  him, 
killed  another  American,  and  when  Senator  Fall 
made  his  speech  he  had  fled  from  the  Huertistas 
and  was  living  under  the  protection  of  our  Gov- 
ernment at  El  Paso.  Says  Senator  Fall:  "He 
is  eating  three  square  meals  a  day  on  this  side 
of  the  river  at  Fort  Bliss,  near  El  Paso,  Texas, 
protected  by  American  soldiers.  Meals  are  be- 
ing provided  and  paid  for  by  the  taxpayers  of 
this  Government  for  something  over  four  thou- 
sand of  the  Mexicans  who  came  across  the  river." 

Joshua  Stevens  was  killed  near  Colonia  Pa- 
checo,  Mexico,  on  August  25,  1912,  and  his  two 
little  daughters  assaulted.  The  case  was  brought 
to  the  attention  of  the  State  Department,  but  no 
protest  was  made. 

Johnny  Brooks  was  killed  at  Colonia,  Chihua- 
hua, in  May,  1913.  He,  however,  was  a  former 
Texas  Ranger  and,  after  being  mortally  wounded 
by  five  assailants,  he  killed  their  leader,  a  Mexi- 
can lieutenant,  before  he  himself  died.  This  man 
had  been  originally  in  the  employ  of  Senator  Fall 
himself.  His  life  was  taken  without  the  slightest 
provocation,  and  nothing  was  ever  done  by  our 
Government  to  demand  reparation. 

On  July  26,  1913,  near  Tampico,  Matthew 
Gourd,  from  the  State  of  Iowa,  and  his  daughter 
and  niece  were  attacked  by  Mexicans.  Gourd 



was  tied  to  a  tree  and  his  daughter  and  niece  out- 
raged in  his  presence.  Apparently  the  only  ac- 
tion taken  by  President  Wilson's  Administration 
was  to  send  word  to  the  American  Consul  at 
Tampico  that  a  Red  Cross  ship  would  be  sent 
down  there  for  a  short  while  and  that  all  Ameri- 
cans should  be  notified  that  if  they  desired  they 
could  go  on  board  it  and  leave  Mexico ! 

On  June  18,  1913,  Rogers  Palmer,  an  English 
citizen,  was  killed,  and  Carl  von  Brandts  and  L. 
W.  Elder,  American  citizens,  were  wounded  in 
Tampico,  while  endeavoring  to  defend  Ameri- 
can women  from  the  attack  of  certain  of  Villa's 

About  the  same  time  H.  W.  Stepp,  an  Ameri- 
can, was  shot  because  of  his  refusal  to  pay  five 
hundred  pesos  ransom. 

Edmund  Hayes  and  Robert  Thomas  were 
killed  by  Santa  Caravo.  Senator  Fall  personally 
called  the  attention  of  President  Wilson  and  Sec- 
retary Bryan  to  the  fact  that  the  murderer  was 
walking  the  streets  of  Juarez,  five  minutes'  ride 
from  El  Paso.  The  Department  demanded  his 
arrest  and  punishment.  He  was  arrested,  but 
nothing  more  has  been  heard  of  the  case;  and 
Senator  Fall  could  get  no  answer  to  his  requests 
to  know  what  the  Government  had  done  to  back 
up  its  threats  and  to  enforce  the  punishment  of 
this  man,  a  red-handed  murderer  of  two  men, 



among  the  best-known  American  pioneers  in 

Benjamin  Griffin,  a  ranchman,  was  murdered 
July  5,  1913.  No  reparation  has  been  obtained. 

John  H.  Williams,  a  mining  engineer;  Boris 
Gadow,  a  consulting  engineer,  and  U.  G.  Wolf, 
a  mining  engineer,  were  all  shot,  but  nothing 
was  done  about  it.  I  quote  verbatim  from  what 
Senator  Fall  says  of  the  next  case  he  mentions : 
"Frank  Ward  was  shot  in  the  back  by  bandits 
near  Yago,  Tepic  Territory,  April  9,  1913.  I 
endeavored  to  obtain  information,  not  by  asking 
the  State  Department,  but  from  other  sources,  as 
I  have  been  compelled  to  obtain  information  in 
other  cases.  For  a  long  while  it  was  impossible 
for  me  to  get  the  facts  of  the  occurrence  result- 
ing in  Ward's  killing,  because  when  American 
women  are  attacked  and  outraged,  they  them- 
selves and  their  friends  attempt  to  keep  their 
names  out  of  the  press  and  avoid  in  every  way 
possible  publicity  in  matters  of  that  kind.  But  I 
can  say  to  you  now,  Mr.  President,  that  an  affi- 
davit is  on  file  in  the  American  Embassy  in  the 
City  of  Mexico  from  Mrs.  Ward  herself  stating 
that  when  her  husband  was  shot,  and  writhing  in 
his  wounds  on  the  floor,  she  was  outraged  by 
Mexican  bandit's,  who  then  killed  him.  The  affi- 
davit is  on  file.  Has  any  attempt  been  made  to 
secure  the  punishment  of  those  guilty  of  this 



crime?"  No;  President  Wilson  took  no  action 

Senator  Fall  went  on  to  enumerate  scores  of 
similar  murders  and  outrages.  It  would  be  use- 
less to  recapitulate  them.  I  call  attention  only  to 
one  or  two  cases.  A  United  States  Customs  In- 
spector, John  S.  H.  Howard,  was  assassinated 
near  Eagle  Pass,  Texas.  The  United  States 
Government  did  nothing,  but  in  this  particular 
case  the  State  of  Texas  caught  one  of  the  assas- 
sins and  dealt  with  him,  says  the  Senator,  "as 
Texas  is  prepared  to  deal,  I  am  glad  to  say,  with 
other  assassins." 

L.  Bushnell,  a  mounted  policeman,  was  killed 
in  Naco,  Arizona,  by  a  bullet  from  over  the  line, 
March  24,  1913.  R.  H.  Ferguson,  a  member  of 
the  troop  F,  Third  United  States  Cavalry,  was 
killed  by  a  bullet  fired  over  the  border  in  similar 

Senator  Fall  states  that  it  is  probable  that  not 
as  many  Americans  have  been  killed  during  the 
last  two  years  as  during  the  preceding  three 
years,  because  the  Americans  have  been  driven 
out  of  Mexico  by  herds.  On  July  28,  1913,  he 
notified  the  Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Bryan,  that 
he  had  in  his  possession  a  list  of  284  men,  301 
women  and  1,266  children,  all  of  them  Americans, 
who  had  been  driven  out  of  Mexico  for  no  fault 
of  their  own.  They  were  people  of  small  means; 



their  little  cottages  had  been  burned  to  the  ground 
in  most  cases.  Secretary  of  State  Bryan  ac- 
knowledged the  receipt  of  the  letter  and  did  noth- 
ing whatever  about  it.  President  Wilson  sup- 
ported Mr.  Bryan  in  the  matter. 

Senator  Fall  gave  minutely  and  in  detail  case 
after  case  of  unspeakable  outrages.  He  showed 
that  these  cases  were  called  specifically  to  the  at- 
tention of  the  Administration  and  that  the  Ad- 
ministration deliberately  declined  to  act  on  be- 
half of  the  unfortunate  beings  who  had  suffered 
such  dreadful  wrong.  He  recited,  what  has  been 
told  to  me  personally  by  other  men  who  have  seen 
Mr.  Bryan,  that  Mr.  Bryan  declined  to  act  in  be- 
half of  Americans  who  had  lost  their  property,  on 
the  ground  that  he  was  not  interested  in  "pro- 
tecting American  dollars."  But  the  enormous 
majority  of  the  men,  women  and  children  who 
have  suffered  in  Mexico  belong  to  the  class  of 
those  persons  of  small  means  who  support  them- 
selves by  their  own  work.  Undoubtedly  the  de- 
struction of  property  has  fallen  upon  the  wealthy 
no  less  than  upon  the  humble ;  but  the  American 
women  who  have  been  outraged,  the  American 
men  who  have  been  killed  and  the  American  chil- 
dren who  have  been  deprived  of  their  parents  or 
of  their  homes,  in  the  immense  majority  of  cases, 
belong  to  the  class  whose  means  are  small. 

President  Wilson  and  Secretary  Bryan  en- 


deavored  to  "protect  the  dollars"  of  wealthy  for- 
eign corporations  by  purchasing  from  or  through 
them  the  German  ships  interned  in  our  ports,  and 
they  endeavored  to  "protect  the  dollars"  of 
wealthy  property  owners  who  desired  to  make 
fortunes  through  the  sale  of  contraband,  but  they 
made  no  effective  protest,  they  took  no  action 
whatever,  as  regards  the  railway  conductors,  the 
brakemen,  the  small  farmers  and  ranchmen,  the 
mining  engineers,  our  fellow  citizens  peacefully 
plying  their  trades  in  Mexico,  whose  property 
was  taken  from  them,  who  themselves  were  some- 
times killed  and  whose  wives  and  daughters, 
American  women,  American  girls,  sometimes 
suffered  outrages  worse  than  death. 

It  is  eminently  right  to  "protect  American  dol- 
lars," so  long  as  this  can  be  done  without  inter- 
fering with  the  just  rights  of  others.  It  is  even 
more  necessary  to  protect  the  persons  and  lives 
of  American  men  and  women.  But  what  shall 
we  say  of  the  governmental  representatives  who 
do  neither,  and  seek  to  cover  their  failure  by 
prattle  about  despising  "dollars"?  Especially 
when  on  the  high  seas  they  treat  "dollars"  as  of 
more  importance  than  the  lives  of  women  and 
children  ? 

Let  me  repeat  that  I  quote  Senator  Fall  only 
because  he  has  spoken  as  a  Senator,  so  that  his 
remarks  are  contained  in  an  official  document, 



which  should  be  circulated  broadcast  throughout 
the  United  States.  I  relate  a  few  of  the  specific 
cases  he  quotes  merely  as  instances,  to  show  that 
our  public  officials  have  had  multitudes  of  such 
cases  specifically  called  to  their  attention.  Any 
number  of  similar  statements  to  those  of  Senator 
Fall  have  been  made  to  me  by  private  individuals. 
American  after  American  has  told  me  that  our 
fellow-countrymen  are  eagerly  seeking  to  obtain 
English  or  German  citizenship,  and  American 
heads  of  corporations  in  Mexico  have  told  me  that 
they  are  employing  only  Germans  or  Englishmen, 
because,  though  Englishmen  and  Germans  are 
not  treated  well  in  Mexico,  they  are  infinitely  bet- 
ter treated  than  Americans. 

There  is  no  government  in  the  world  for  which 
the  Mexican  people  now  feel  the  profound  con- 
tempt that  they  feel  for  the  United  States  Gov- 
ernment ;  and  we  owe  this  contempt  to  the  way  in 
which  our  governmental  authorities  have  behaved 
during  the  last  five  years,  but  especially  during 
the  last  three  years.  Well-meaning  people  praise 
President  Wilson  for  having  preserved  "peace" 
with  Mexico,  and  avoided  the  "hostility"  of  Mex- 
ico. As  a  matter  of  fact  his  action  has  steadily 
increased  Mexican  hostility,  has  not  prevented 
the  futile  and  infamous  little  "war"  in  which  we 
first  took  and  then  abandoned  Vera  Cruz,  and 
has  been  responsible  for  death,  outrage  and  suf- 



fering  which  have  befallen  hundreds  of  Ameri- 
cans and  hundreds  of  thousands  of  Mexicans 
during  the  carnival  of  crime  and  bloodshed  with 
which  this  "peace"  has  prevented  interference. 

Senator  Fall  made  it  evident  in  his  speech  that 
he  held  no  brief  for  either  of  the  contending 
Mexican  factions.  He  described  Huerta  in  lan- 
guage of  just  severity,  but  he  showed,  what  every 
man  in  his  senses  knows,  that  Villa  has  been  a 
bandit  and  murderer  by  profession,  and  a  mur- 
derer, robber  and  outrager  of  women  since  he 
has  become  a  general  in  the  revolution.  Car- 
ranza  and  his  party  have  stood  precisely  on  the 
same  level  of  bandit-murder.  There  was  no  rea- 
son whatever  for  any  American  to  uphold  Huer- 
ta ;  but  to  antagonize  him  on  moral  grounds,  and 
then  to  endeavor  to  replace  him  by  a  polyga- 
mous bandit,  was  not  compatible  with  any  intelli- 
gent system  of  international  ethics.  Nor  did  any 
betterment  follow  from  dropping  this  bandit,  and 
putting  the  power  of  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment behind  another  bandit.  It  may  be  en- 
tirely proper  to  take  the  view  that  we  have  no 
concern  with  the  morality  of  any  chief  who  is  for 
the  time  being  the  ruler  of  Mexico.  But  to  do  as 
President  Wilson  has  done  and  actively  take  sides 
against  Huerta  and  for  Villa,  condemning  the 
former  for  misdeeds,  and  ignoring  the  far  worse 
misdeeds  of  the  latter,  and  then  to  abandon  Villa 



and  support  against  him  Carranza,  who  was  re- 
sponsible for  exactly  the  same  kind  of  hideous 
outrages  against  Americans,  and  insults  to  the 
American  flag,  is  an  affront  to  all  who  believe  in 
straightforward  sincerity  in  American  public 

Senator  Fall  gives  in  detail  the  circumstances 
of  a  few  of  Villa's  crimes,  some  of  them  so  shock- 
ing that  any  decent  man's  blood  boils  as  he  reads 
them.  Villa's  efficiency  has  unquestionably  been 
great,  but  it  has  been  efficiency  of  the  type  which 
in  the  reign  of  King  Bomba  gave  certain  Sicilian 
and  Calabrian  bandit  chiefs  international  prom- 
inence. The  statements  of  Senator  Fall  have 
never  been  successfully  questioned.  Villa  can, 
of  course,  be  defended,  but  only  in  the  sense  that 
it  is  possible  to  defend  Geronimo  or  some  other 
Apache  chief  of  Geronimo's  type;  to  defend  Villa 
as  representing  freedom  and  justice  and  democ- 
racy in  the  sense  that  the  words  are  used  in 
speaking  of  civilized  nations  is  literally  like  de- 
fending an  old-time  Apache  chief  on  the  same 
grounds.  The  sincerity  of  such  a  defence  can 
escape  question  only  if  the  defender  is  admitted 
to  be  entirely  ignorant  of  all  concerning  which 
he  speaks. 

It  is  not  possible  to  give  all  the  facts  in  full. 
For  this  the  responsibility  lies  entirely  with  the 
President,  for  he  has  consistently  carried  out  a 



policy  of  secrecy  as  regards  the  outrages  on  our 
citizens  in  Mexico.  He  has  persistently  refused 
to  let  the  facts  be  known.  He  has  worked  in  the 
darkness  and  behind  cover.  He  has  followed  the 
policy  of  preventing  all  publicity.  He  has  con- 
cealed the  truth  and  furtively  evaded  telling  the 
truth.  But  nevertheless  we  do  know  the  facts 
in  a  very  large  number  of  cases.  From  the  in- 
formation available,  it  appears  that  over  two 
hundred  American  lives  have  been  lost  in  Mex- 
ico; that  as  regards  none  of  them  has  redress 
been  secured,  and  that  as  regards  most  of  them 
it  has  not  even  been  demanded. 

Apparently  many  hundreds  of  millions  of  dol- 
lars of  American  capital  was  invested  in  Mexico, 
and  of  this  almost  all  is  gone.  As  before  stated, 
when  remonstrated  with  on  this  subject,  Mr. 
Bryan,  speaking  for  President  Wilson,  repeat- 
edly informed  callers  that  he  was  not  "interested 
in  American  dollars";  that  Americans  who  in- 
vested in  property  in  foreign  countries  could  not 
look  to  this  Government  to  protect  them.  Yet  at 
that  very  time  another  member  of  the  Cabinet 
who  sat  at  the  same  council  board  with  Mr. 
Bryan  was  making  an  earnest  appeal  that  Ameri- 
cans should  invest  their  property — "dollars" — in 
enterprises  in  South  America;  and  at  that  very 
time  Mr.  Bryan,  in  accordance  with  the  orders  of 
Mr.  Wilson,  was  making  protests  about  the  in- 



terference  with  American  property — "dollars" — 
on  the  high  seas. 

Of  course  what  Messrs.  Wilson  and  Bryan 
say  about  "American  dollars"  is  a  mere  rhetor- 
ical flourish  in  any  event.  If  we  have  no  right 
under  any  circumstances  to  jeopardize  life  to  pro- 
tect property  in  international  matters,  then  we 
have  no  right  to  jeopardize  it  to  protect  property 
in  municipal  matters.  If  the  Wilson-Bryan  doc- 
trine is  true,  then  no  policeman  should  arrest  any 
violent  offender  for  a  crime  less  than  murder  or 
rape,  and  no  householder  should  defend  himself 
against  a  burglar  or  highwayman,  for  in  such 
case  he  is  undoubtedly  jeopardizing  the  life  either 
of  his  assailant  or  himself  in  order  to  "protect 

However,  President  Wilson's  practice  is  a  little 
worse  even  than  his  theory.  His  theory  has  been 
that  he  would  not  protect  American  property  in 
Mexico.  His  practice  has  been  that  he  would  not 
protect  American  men  from  murder  and  Ameri- 
can women  from  rape  in  Mexico.  And  at  the 
same  time  President  Wilson,  in  striving  to 
secure  and  protect  certain  kinds  of  prop- 
erty— that  is,  in  dealing  with  matters  of  contra- 
band and  of  the  purchase  of  the  interned  ships 
of  one  of  the  powers  now  at  war — has  been  fol- 
lowing in  feeble  and  irresolute  fashion  a  policy 
which  it  is  quite  conceivable  would,  if  successful, 



let  us  drift  into  war  in  peculiarly  ignoble  fashion. 

The  Hague  conventions  bound  us  to  protest 
against  the  dreadful  wrong  done  to  the  men, 
women  and  children  of  Belgium.  President  Wil- 
son declined  to  make  any  protest  on  behalf  of 
human  life,  lest  to  do  so  might  embroil  us  with 
some  powerful  outside  nation;  but  he  protests 
heartily  against  any  interference  with  our  selling 
copper  to  be  used  in  the  warlike  operations 
against  these  same  Belgians;  thereby  showing 
that  in  practice  he  puts  property  rights  above 
those  highest  of  human  rights  which  concern  the 
lives  of  the  helpless. 

A  year  ago  President  Wilson  spoke  on  the 
subject  of  Mexico  in  a  speech  at  Indianapo- 
lis. At  the  beginning  of  his  speech  he  said,  "I 
got  very  tired  staying  in  Washington  and  saying 
sweet  things.  I  wanted  to  come  out  and  get  in 
touch  with  you  once  more  and  say  what  I  really 
thought."  Disregarding  the  implication  as  to 
his  own  past  sincerity  contained  in  this  statement, 
we  have  a  right  to  take  the  speech  as  expressing 
his  deliberate  conviction  and  purpose.  He  said 
that  he  possessed  "a  reckless  enthusiasm  for  hu- 
man liberty,"  and  then  spoke  of  his  own  policy 
of  "watchful  waiting  in  Mexico."  Apparently, 
in  his  mind  "watchful  waiting"  is  a  species  of 
"reckless  enthusiasm."  He  asserted  that  the  peo- 
ple of  Mexico  have  a  right  to  do  anything  they 



please  about  their  business,  saying,  "It  is  none 
of  my  business;  it  is  none  of  your  business  how 
long  they  take  in  determining  it.  It  is  none  of 
my  business  and  it  is  none  of  yours  how  they  go 
about  the  business.  Haven't  the  European  na- 
tions taken  as  long  as  they  wanted  and  spilled  as 
much  blood  as  they  pleased  in  settling  their  af- 
fairs ?  Shall  we  deny  that  to  Mexico  because  she 
is  weak?" 

This  is  the  kind  of  language  that  can  be  used 
about  Mexico  with  sincerity  only  if  it  is  also  to 
be  applied  to  Dahomey  and  to  outrages  like  those 
of  the  French  Commune.  It  cannot  in  the  long 
run  be  accepted  by  any  great  state  which  is  both 
strong  and  civilized  nor  by  any  statesman  with 
a  serious  purpose  to  better  mankind.  In  point 
of  public  morality  it  is  fundamentally  as  evil 
a  declaration  as  has  ever  been  put  forth  by  an 
American  President  in  treating  of  foreign  af- 
fairs ;  and  there  is  to  it  the  added  touch  of  ineffi- 

Moreover,  President  Wilson's  words,  bad 
though  they  are,  have  not  been  borne  out  by  his 
deeds.  He  has  actively  interfered  in  Mexico  on 
behalf  of  some  of  those  spillers  of  blood  whose 
right  to  "spill"  blood  he  exuberantly  champions. 
He  has  not  interfered  to  punish  the  bandits  and 
murderers  who  have  killed  American  men  and 
outraged  American  women.  He  has  not  in- 



terfered  to  protect  the  honor  and  the  interest 
of  the  United  States.  He  has  not  interfered 
to  protect  the  lives  and  the  property  of  our  citi- 
zens or  of  the  citizens  of  any  other  country.  But 
he  has  interfered  to  help  put  into  power  the  very 
worst  among  the  leaders  of  the  various  murder- 
ous and  thieving  groups  and  factions,  and  then 
to  replace  him  with  the  next  worst. 

President  Wilson  refused  to  run  the  risk  of 
shedding  the  blood  of  any  American  soldiers  to 
protect  American  citizens  and  put  a  stop  to  an- 
archy and  murder  and  prevent  further  blood- 
spilling  or  to  try  to  bring  peace  to  the  distracted 
land  of  Mexico.  He  refused  to  run  the  risk  of 
shedding  the  blood  of  any  American  soldier  in 
order  to  prevent  the  killing  of  American  soldiers 
and  American  private  citizens  on  our  own  terri- 
tory by  Mexicans  who  shot  at  or  toward  them 
from  the  other  side  of  the  border  line.  The  rape 
of  women,  the  murder  of  men  and  the  cruel 
treatment  of  little  children  left  his  tepid  soul 
unstirred.  Insult  to  the  American  flag,  nameless 
infamies  on  American  women,  caused  him  not 
one  single  pulse  of  emotion.  But  he  wantonly 
and  without  the  smallest  excuse  and  without  the 
smallest  benefit  to  this  country  shed  the  blood  of 
several  scores  of  American  soldiers  and  sailors  in 
order  to  help  put  one  blood-stained  bandit  in  the 
place  of  another  blood-stained  bandit.  And  he 



now,  without  any  reason  of  morality  or  sound 
public  policy,  is  helping  a  third  blood-stained 
bandit  against  his  former  ally  and  protege,  the 
second  bandit. 

Murder  and  torture;  rape  and  robbery;  the 
death  of  women  by  outrage  and  children  by  star- 
vation; the  shooting  of  men  by  the  thousand  in 
cold  blood — Mr.  Wilson  takes  note  of  these  facts 
only  to  defend  the  right  of  vicious  and  disorderly 
Mexicans  to  "spill"  as  much  as  they  please  of  the 
blood  of  their  peaceful  fellow-citizens  and  of 
law-abiding  foreigners.  But  when  the  chance 
came  for  him  to  use  the  Army  and  Navy  of  the 
United  States  in  favor  of  the  worst  offender 
among  all  the  rival  bandit  chiefs,  he  eagerly 
clutched  at  it. 

Senator  Lodge,  in  his  speech  of  January  6, 
1915,  discussed  at  length  what  President  Wilson 
has  done  in  this  matter,  and  no  successful  at- 
tempt has  been  made  or  can  be  made  to  answer 
what  he  then  said.  His  speech,  together  with  the 
speech  of  Senator  Fall  and  the  speech  of  Senator 
Borah,  should  be  circulated  among  all  honest 
citizens  who  wish  to  know  what  the  facts  really 

The  country  should  clearly  understand  the  aw- 
ful misery  that  has  been  brought  upon  Mexico 
by  President  Wilson's  policy.  It  is  extraordi- 
nary that  we  do  not  realize  that,  thanks  to  our 


own  selfishness  and  heedlessness,  thanks  to  the 
dishonorable  timidity  of  the  Administration, 
the  conditions  of  life  in  Mexico  are  worse  at  this 
moment  than  the  conditions  of  life  in  the  regions 
over  which  the  contending  armies  in  Europe  have 
fought.  In  1914  we  sent  Christmas  ships  abroad 
to  the  war-stricken  countries  of  Europe.  This 
was  well ;  but  why  did  we  neglect  Mexico,  where 
our  own  responsibility  is  so  heavy? 

At  that  very  time  a  pathetic  appeal  had  been 
issued  by  a  company  of  Mexicans  near  the  inter- 
national boundary  line  addressed  "To  the  Ameri- 
can People  and  their  Exalted  Authorities."  It 
was  a  plea  for  work  for  the  men  and  bread  for 
the  women  and  children.  They  asked  for  work, 
for  justice,  for  bread.  Conditions  like  those 
which  in  Europe  have  shocked  the  civilized  world 
have  existed  here  right  against  our  own  borders, 
for  four  years,  unconsidered  by  us. 

As  the  wife  of  one  of  our  consuls-general  has 
said:  "Mexico  is  peopled  with  widows  and  or- 
phans, and  famine  is  in  the  land.  One  sees  it 
daily,  in  emaciated  forms,  shrunken  cheeks, 
tightly  drawn  skin  and  burning  eyes.  It  is  in  the 
faces  of  women,  old  men  and  little  children. 
Many  have  died  on  American  soil  during  the 
past  year,  ostensibly  from  obscure  disease,  but 
actually  from  starvation,  and  there  are  hundreds 
of  children  who  have  never  had  sufficient  food 



in  their  pitiful  little  lives.  That  is  the  heart- 
breaking tragedy  in  it  all — the  unsmiling  little 
children  who  sit  silently  by  the  doors  of  the  huts 
through  the  long  hours  of  long  days.  The  sound 
of  laughter  and  of  playing  children  has  been 
stilled  in  Mexico.  From  these  people  comes  a 
cry  of  bread  for  the  starving.  The  United  States 
has  claimed  the  exclusive  right  to  intervene  in 
Mexican  affairs.  Will  we  demand  the  right  and 
repudiate  the  obligation?" 

This  is  the  state  of  affairs  to  which  Mexico  has 
been  brought  by  the  practical  application  of  Mr. 
Bryan's  doctrine  as  to  not  caring  for  "American 
dollars"  (it  is  American  dollars  that  buy  food 
for  the  starving,  Mr.  Bryan!)  and  of  President 
Wilson's  doctrine  that  we  must  not  interfere  or 
let  any  one  else  interfere  to  stop  "spilling  blood" 
in  Mexico.  President  Wilson's  position  meets 
the  enthusiastic  approval  of  the  bandits  who  spill 
the  blood.  It  meets  and  it  merits  the  enthusi- 
astic support  of  the  blood-smeared  leaders  to 
whom  his  inaction  has  given  the  chance  to  mur- 
der men  and  outrage  women  and  to  let  little  chil- 
dren starve. 

But  the  laughter  of  little  children  has  been 
stilled  in  Mexico.  It  has  been  stilled  because 
President  Wilson  in  his  handling  of  the  Mexican 
problem,  as  in  his  handling  of  every  other  branch 
of  our  foreign  affairs,  has  placed  this  country  in 



the  position  of  shirking  its  plain  duty,  of  seeking 
its  own  ignoble  ease  beyond  everything  else,  and 
of  declining  to  protect  its  own  citizens  or  to  fulfill 
its  international  obligations  or  to  interfere  for 
the  weak  and  helpless,  when  rapine  and  murder 
stalk  in  insolent  mastery  over  the  land. 

Our  course  as  regards  Mexico  has  been  a 
terrible  thing  for  Mexico.  It  has  been  a  shame- 
ful thing  for  the  United  States.  But  if  this 
policy  is  permanently  continued,  there  will  be 
yet  further  shame  in  store  for  the  United 
States.  Sooner  or  later  the  war  in  Europe  will 
come  to  an  end;  and  then  the  great  armed  na- 
tions, after  a  more  or  less  brief  interval,  will  cer- 
tainly turn  their  attention  to  us  and  to  Mexico. 
We  cannot  forbid  interference  with  Mexico  in 
the  name  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine  and  yet  fail  to 
fulfill  the  obligation  imposed  on  us  by  common 
humanity  if  we  maintain  that  doctrine. 

Spaniards,  Germans,  Englishmen,  Italians, 
Frenchmen,  have  been  wronged  in  Mexico,  only 
less  than  our  own  citizens  have  been  wronged — 
only  less  than  decent  and  well-behaved  Mexicans 
have  been  wronged — by  the  inhuman  bandits  to 
whom  our  Government  has  furnished  arms  and 
aid  for  the  perpetration  of  their  crimes.  Presi- 
dent Wilson  in  his  messages  has  confusedly  ad- 
vocated, first  that  we  stay  unprepared  and  help- 
less in  the  face  of  military  nations,  and  next  that 



we  go  into  a  policy  of  half-way  preparation;  and 
in  actual  fact  he  has  not  made  even  the  smallest 
advance  towards  preparedness.  He  also  advo- 
cates that  in  Mexico  we  pursue  the  policy  of  let- 
ting the  violent  and  disorderly  elements  of  the 
population  slowly  destroy  all  the  leading  men, 
all  the  reputable  people,  and  bring  destruction  by 
fire  and  steel,  by  disease  and  famine,  on  the  hum- 
ble men  and  women  and  little  children,  and  also 
on  the  strangers  within  their  gates. 

The  self-respecting  and  powerful  nations  of 
the  world  will  not  permanently  permit  such  a 
course  of  action.  We  will  not  permanently  be 
permitted  to  render  ourselves  impotent  in  the 
face  of  possible  aggression  and  at  the  same  time 
try  to  forbid  other  nations  from  righting  wrongs 
which  we  are  too  weak,  too  timid  or  too  short- 
sighted ourselves  to  right.  In  the  end  foreign  na- 
tions will  assuredly  take  issue  with  the  Wilson- 
Bryan  theory,  which  is  that  America  can  adopt  as 
her  permanent  policy  the  shirking  of  national 
duty  by  this  country,  combined  with  a  protest 
against  any  other  country  doing  the  duty  which 
we  have  shirked.  Either  we  shall  have  to  abandon 
the  Monroe  Doctrine  and  let  other  nations  restore 
order  in  Mexico,  and  then  deprive  us  of  any  right 
to  speak  in  behalf  of  any  people  of  the  Western 
Hemisphere,  or  else  we  must  in  good  faith  our- 
selves undertake  the  task  and  bring  peace  and 



order  and  prosperity  to  Mexico,  as  by  our  wise 
intervention  it  was  brought  to  Cuba. 

In  the  last  five  years  the  suffering  in  Mexico 
has  in  the  aggregate  far  surpassed  the  suffering 
in  Belgium  during  the  last  eighteen  months. 
Dark  deeds  have  been  done  in  Belgium,  but  they 
have  not  been  as  dark  as  the  fiendish  atrocities 
perpetrated  in  Mexico.  For  these  Mexican 
atrocities  the  United  States  Government  must 
shoulder  a  very  heavy  load  of  responsibility, 
thanks  chiefly  to  President  Wilson's  Administra- 

The  other  day  a  friend  of  mine,  a  German  dip- 
lomat, wrote  to  me  taking  exception  to  my  con- 
demnation of  Germany  because  of  its  acts  to- 
ward Belgium,  and  his  letter  ran  partly  as  fol- 
lows :  "You  do  not  refer  to  the  present  Mexican 
question,  at  which  I  am  not  astonished.  Don't 
you  believe  it  would  have  been  rather  queer  to 
get  a  protest  about  Belgium  from  a  government 
which  had  created  the  most  extraordinary  breach 
of  international-law-impossibilities  (please  ex- 
cuse this  queer  expression)  by  at  first  not  rec- 
ognizing a  President  of  a  neighboring  country, 
with  whom  it  seemed  on  good  terms,  then  allow- 
ing arms  to  be  sent  to  the  revolutionaries  in  that 
country,  not  to  recognize  them  as  belligerents 
though ;  then  to  forbid  this  export  of  arms,  then 
to  allow  it  again;  to  occupy  by  force  a  port,  to 



leave  it  again,  and  to  wind  up  by  leaving  the 
country  in  question — which  was  supposed  to 
benefit  by  all  this,  at  least  that  was  what  we  out- 
siders were  told — with,  I  think,  five  Presidents 
fighting  one  another  and  ruining  the  country 
completely.  I  think  the  results  for  Mexico  have 
been  worse  than  our  invasion  of  Belgium." 

There  was  no  adequate  answer  that  I  could 
make  to  my  German  'friend;  and  in  the  wrongs 
done  to  Belgium  by  Germany,  Germany  has  at 
least  shown  strength  and  fearlessness  and  effi- 
ciency, whereas  the  course  of  the  Administration 
in  regard  to  Mexico  has  branded  our  country 
with  the  brand  of  feebleness,  timidity  and  vacil- 
lation. A  weakling  who  fears  to  stand  up  man- 
fully for  the  right  may  work  as  much  mischief 
as  any  strong-armed  wrongdoer.  For  two  years 
President  Wilson  has  decreed  that  Mexican 
malefactors  shall  be  allowed  at  will  to  spill  the 
blood  of  the  innocent,  and  because  of  this  atti- 
tude of  President  Wilson,  American  men  have 
been  wantonly  murdered  and  American  women 
outraged,  while  the  famine-stricken  women  of 
Mexico  mourn,  and  among  their  starving  chil- 
dren there  is  no  laughter. 




THE  following  two  letters  show  an  attitude 
on  the  part  of  the  National  Administration 
which  challenges  the  careful  consideration  of 
every  American.  The  letters,  which  were  sent 
me  by  Mr.  John  M.  Parker,  of  New  Orleans, 
explain  themselves: 

Hon.    William   Jennings   Bryan,   Secretary    of 

State,  Washington,  D.  C. 
Your  Excellency: 

My  father,  P.  A.  Lelong,  was  a  native  of 
France  and  came  to  New  Orleans  when  he  was 
about  twenty  years  of  age;  lived  here  about  forty 
years.  He  died  here  about  two  years  ago,  but 
about  five  years  before  his  death  took  out  natu- 
ralization papers. 

I  was  born  in  New  Orleans,  June  18,  1880.  I 
have  never  been  out  of  the  United  States  and 
have  regularly  voted  as  an  American  citizen  since 
I  reached  the  age  of  twenty-one  years,  and  if 



war  had  ever  occurred  between  France  and  the 
United  States,  I  most  certainly  would  have 
fought  for  the  United  States.  I  have  held  the 
office  of  Township  Commissioner  in  Henderson 
County,  North  Carolina ;  have  held  several  court 
appointments,  both  Federal  and  State,  and  am  a 
member  of  the  State  and  Federal  bar,  and  have 
considered  myself  as  much  an  American  citizen 
as  President  Wilson  or  any  of  the  members  of 
the  Cabinet. 

I  wish  to  visit  France  on  business  in  the  near 
future,  and  am  informed  by  Mr.  Ferrand  and  the 
French  Consul  here  that  if  I  go  to  France  I  could 
be  either  impressed  into  the  French  service  or 
punished  for  not  having  reported  for  military 
duty,  and  also  for  having  served  in  the  State 
Militia  of  Louisiana  without  permission  from 
the  French  Government. 

I  contend  that  if  the  French  Government  had 
any  right  to  claim  me  as  a  citizen  under  their 
laws,  in  times  of  peace  they  should  have  called 
on  me  to  serve  my  three  years  in  their  military 

Wishing  to  know  whether  my  constitutional 
privileges  as  an  American  citizen  follow  me 
wherever  I  go,  with  its  constitutional  guarantees, 
or  whether  the  United  States  Government  will 
allow  the  French  Government  to  act  in  the  man- 
ner as  stated  by  Mr.  Ferrand,  the  French  Consul, 



I  respectfully  request  an  answer  at  as  early  a 
date  as  possible. 

Respectfully  yours, 
(Signed)     P.  A.  L£I,ONG,  JR. 

To  this  the  following  answer  was  returned: 


WASHINGTON,  April  2,  1915. 
Mr.  P.  A.  Lelong,  Junior,  832  Union  Street, 

New  Orleans,  Louisiana. 

The  Department  has  received  your  letter  of 
March  27,  1915,  stating  that  you  expect  to  go  to 
France  on  business  in  the  near  future  and  in- 
quiring whether  you  would  be  molested  by  the 
French  military  authorities.  You  say  that  you 
were  born  in  New  Orleans,  June  18,  1880,  and 
that  your  father,  a  native  of  France,  resided  in 
this  country  about  forty  years  and  obtained 
naturalization  as  a  citizen  of  the  United  States 
shortly  before  his  death,  which  occurred  about 
two  years  ago. 

Under  the  provision  of  the  Fourteenth  Amend- 
ment to.the  Constitution,  all  persons  born  in  the 
United  States  and  subject  to  the  jurisdiction 
thereof  are  citizens  of  the  United  States.  Sec- 
tion one,  Article  VII  of  the  French  Civil  Code, 
states  that  the  following  are  Frenchmen :  "Every 



person    born    of    a    Frenchman    in    France    or 

It  thus  appears  that  you  were  born  with  a  dual 
nationality,  and  the  Department  cannot  there- 
fore give  you  any  assurance  that  you  would  not 
be  held  liable  for  the  performance  of  military 
service  in  France  should  you  voluntarily  place 
yourself  within  French  jurisdiction. 
I  am,  sir, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

For  the  Secretary  of  State, 
(Signed)     ROBERT  LANSING, 


One  effect  of  this  decision,  on  an  American 
citizen  who  actually  went  abroad,  reached  me  in 
a  letter  I  received,  dated  November  6th,  1915, 
from  Camp  House,  Short  Hills,  New  Jersey. 
The  writer  is  an  Italian  woman,  Elizabeth  Par- 
ness.  Her  husband,  Vito  Parness,  is  not  only  a 
naturalized  citizen,  but  has  served  in  the  Elev- 
enth Cavalry,  United  States  Army,  for  three 
years,  being  discharged  a  non-commissioned  of- 
ficer. In  November,  1914,  he  went  to  Italy  to  see 
his  old  father  and  mother  and  has  not  been  al- 
lowed to  return.  His  wife  writes  me  that  she  is 
in  dire  poverty,  having  no  means  of  support; 
that  the  State  Department  has  been  notified,  but 
that  nothing  has  been  done.  But  it  is,  perhaps, 



natural  that  when  native-born  Americans  are 
murdered  and  their  wives  raped  with  impunity 
in  Mexico,  naturalized  Americans,  even  although 
ex-United  States  soldiers,  receive  no  protection 
in  Europe. 

I  hold  that  it  is  the  clear  duty  of  the  American 
people  immediately  to  repudiate  the  doctrine  thus 
laid  down  by  the  Wilson  Administration.  Ac- 
cording to  this  doctrine  there  are  in  our  coun- 
try very  many  citizens — and,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  this  ruling  would  apply  to  millions  of  citi- 
zens— who  are  "born  with  a  dual  nationality." 
Two  or  three  years  ago  it  was  announced  that 
Germany  had  passed  a  law  by  which  she  provided 
for  her  citizens,  who  became  naturalized  in  the 
United  States  or  elsewhere,  the  means  of  also  re- 
taining their  German  citizenship,  so  that  these 
men  would  preserve  a  dual  citizenship,  what  the 
Department  of  State  in  this  letter  of  April  2nd 
last  calls  "  a  dual  nationality/'  I  hold  that  it  was 
the  business  of  our  Government  as  soon  as  this 
statement  was  published  to  investigate  the  facts, 
to  require  would-be  citizens  to  repudiate  this  law, 
and  to  notify  the  German  Government  that  we 
protested  against  and  would  refuse  to  recognize 
its  action;  that  we  declined  to  recognize  or  ac- 
quiesce in  the  principle  of  such  a  dual  citizenship 
or  a  dual  nationality ;  that  we  would  hold  natural- 
ized citizens  to  the  full  performance  of  the  duties 



of  American  citizenship,  which  were  necessarily 
exclusive  of  and  inconsistent  with  the  profession 
of  citizenship  in  or  allegiance  to  any  other  na- 
tion, and  that  in  return  we  would  extend  the  same 
protection  to  these  citizens  that  is  extended  to 
native-born  citizens.  Such  action  was  not  taken. 
It  is  a  reproach  to  us  as  a  nation  that  it  was  not 
taken.  We  should  not  for  a  moment  tolerate 
the  assumption  by  Germany  or  by  any  other 
foreign  power  that  foreign-born  citizens  of  the 
United  States  can  retain  any  citizenship  in  or 
allegiance  to  the  country  from  which  they  came. 
But  the  present  case  is  even  worse.  It  seems 
incredible  that  the  Department  of  State  can  pro- 
mulgate the  doctrine  of  dual  nationality  pro- 
mulgated in  its  letter  above  quoted.  Yet  it  has 
been  asserted  and  reasserted,  both  before  and 
since  Mr.  Bryan  left  office.  It  is  dangerously 
close  to  treason  to  the  United  States  to  hold 
that  men  born  here  of  foreign  parentage,  men 
who  have  served  in  the  militia  in  this  country, 
who  vote  and  hold  office  and  exercize  all  the 
other  rights  of  citizenship,  and  who  in  good  faith 
are  and  always  have  been  Americans,  should, 
nevertheless,  be  blandly  informed  by  the  State 
Department  that  if  they  visit  the  countries  in 
which  their  parents  were  born  they  can  be  seized, 
punished  for  evasion  of  military  duty,  or  made 
to  serve  in  the  army. 



Let  me  point  out  a  few  of  the  possible  applica- 
tions of  the  doctrines  thus  laid  down  by  the  De- 
partment of  State.  If  Colonel  Goethals  went  to 
Holland  he  would  be  liable  to  be  shipped  out  for 
military  service  in  Sumatra.  If  Admirals  Oster- 
haus  and  Schroeder  had  gone  to  Germany  they 
could  have  been  forced  to  serve  under  Admiral 
von  Tirpitz  in  the  German  navy.  If  General 
Barry  should  visit  England  he  could  be  seized 
and  sent  to  the  trenches  in  France.  If  my  neigh- 
bors Messrs.  Peter  Dunne  and  Mark  Sullivan, 
and  my  friends  Judge  O'Brien  and  James  Con- 
oily  and  Charles  Conolly,  went  to  England  they 
could  be  impressed  into  the  British  army  for 
service  in  Flanders  or  Ireland.  If  the  sons  of 
Jacob  Riis  went  to  Denmark  they  could  be  re- 
tained in  the  Danish  forces.  If  the  son  of  the 
great  war  correspondent  McGahan,  whose 
mother  was  a  Russian  lady,  went  to  Russia,  he 
could  be  sent  to  serve  in  the  Carpathians.  Presi- 
dent Andrew  Jackson  on  this  theory  could  have 
been  impressed  for  military  service  in  the  English 
army  against  which  he  fought  at  New  Orleans, 
if  he  had  ever  happened  to  visit  England;  and 
President  Arthur  would  have  been  in  the  same 

Such  incidents  seem  like  the  phantasmagoria 
of  an  unpleasant  dream.  Until  I  saw  this  letter 
of  April  2nd  last,  I  had  not  supposed  that  it 



would  be  possible  for  any  human  being  in  our 
country  to  uphold  such  a  proposition.  Yet  in 
point  of  rights,  Mr.  Lelong  stands  exactly  level 
with  the  men  whom  I  have  thus  instanced. 
Surely  it  ought  not  to  be  necessary  to  say  that 
the  rights  of  every  citizen  in  this  land  are  as 
great  and  as  sacred  as  those  of  any  other  citizen. 
The  United  States  cannot  with  self-respect  per- 
mit its  organic  and  fundamental  law  to  be  over- 
ridden by  the  laws  of  a  foreign  country.  It  can- 
not acknowledge  any  such  theory  as  this  of  "a 
dual  nationality" — which,  incidentally,  is  a  self- 
evident  absurdity. 

Mr.  Lelong  was  born  in  this  country;  when 
he  became  of  age  he  elected  to  exercise  his  birth- 
right granted  to  him  by  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States;  he  took  an  oath  to  support  that 
Constitution,  and  he  has  held  military  office  un- 
der its  authority,  and  under  the  authority  of  two 
states  of  the  American  Union.  He  is  eligible  to 
the  Presidency  of  the  United  States.  He  is  a 
citizen  of  the  United  States,  standing  on  an  exact 
equality  of  right  with  all  other  citizens,  and  he  is 
entitled  to  the  full  protection  of  the  United  States 
both  in  and  out  of  any  foreign  country,  free  and 
exempt  from  any  provision  of  the  law  of  that 
country  as  to  citizenship.  There  should  not  be  a 
moment's  delay  in  asserting  this  doctrine,  not 
only  as  regards  Mr.  Lelong  and  France,  but  as 



regards  Germany  in  connection  with  her  law 
providing  for  a  dual  citizenship  so  far  as  it  con- 
cerns immigrants  from  Germany  who  become 
citizens  of  the  United  States. 

We  should  assert  in  the  face  of  all  the  nations 
of  the  world,  of  France  and  England,  of  Russia, 
Austria  and  Germany,  the  principle  that  we  our- 
selves determine  for  ourselves  the  rights  of  citi- 
zenship of  our  citizens,  that  we  champion  them 
in  the  full  exercise  of  these  rights  as  against 
any  foreign  power  that  interferes  with  them,  and 
that  in  return  we  hold  them  to  a  full  accounta- 
bility for  the  exercise  of  these  rights  in  the  sole 
interest  of  the  United  States  as  against  any 
foreign  power  which  claims  any  allegiance  what- 
soever from  them. 




JAPAN  is  indeed  a  wonderful  land.  Nothing 
in  history  has  quite  paralleled  her  rise  dur- 
ing the  last  fifty  years.  Her  progress  has  been 
remarkable  alike  in  war,  in  industry,  in  states- 
manship, in  science.  Her  admirals  and  generals, 
her  statesmen  and  administrators,  have  accom- 
plished feats  with  which  only  the  greatest  feats 
of  the  picked  men  of  corresponding  position  in 
Europe  and  the  two  Americas  during  the  same 
time  can  be  compared  —  and  in  order  to  match  in 
the  aggregate  these  great  men  of  a  single  island 
nation,  more  than  one  of  the  countries  of  the 
Occident  must  be  drawn  on. 

Among  the  Japanese  administrators  of  high 
note  is  Count  Terauchi,  and  among  Japan's  many 
feats  of  consequence  is  her  administration  of 
Korea.  Count  Terauchi  is  the  Governor-Gen- 
eral of  Korea  —  Chosen,  as  the  Japanese  term  it  — 
and  he  has  just  compiled  and  published  at  Seoul 
(Keijo)  a  report  on  the  "Reform  and  Progress 
in  Chosen"  for  the  years  1912-1913.  It  is  in 
English  ;  and  no  book  of  the  kind  recently  issued 



is  better  worth  the  study  of  statesmen  and  of 
scholars  interested  in  every  kind  of  social  re- 
form. Moreover,  its  study  is  of  capital  conse- 
quence from  the  standpoint  of  those  who  recog- 
nize the  importance  of  bringing  home  to  our  peo- 
ple the  knowledge  of  the  admirable  and  masterly 
achievements  of  the  Japanese  in  the  difficult  task 
of  colonial  administration. 

In  its  essence  the  work  that  has  been  done  in 
Korea  under  Count  Terauchi  is  like  that  done 
under  similar  conditions  by  the  chief  colonial  ad- 
ministrators of  the  United  States,  England, 
France  and  Germany.  Korea  as  an  independent 
nation  could  not  keep  order  at  home  and  was 
powerless  to  strike  an  effective  blow  on  her  own 
behalf  when  assailed  from  abroad.  She  had  been 
dominated  by  Russia,  so  that  all  obligations  of 
foreign  powers  to  help  her  keep  her  independence 
had  lapsed  long  before  the  outbreak  of  the  Russo- 
Japanese  war;  and  under  the  circumstances  her 
subsequent  domination,  and,  in  1910,  her  final 
annexation  by  Japan  was  inevitable.  The 
Japanese  have  restored  and  enforced  order, 
built  roads  and  railways,  carried  out  great  engi- 
neering works,  introduced  modern  sanitation,  in- 
troduced a  modern  school  system  and  doubled  the 
commerce  and  the  agricultural  output,  substan- 
tially as  the  most  advanced  nations  of  Europe 
and  America  have  done  under  like  conditions. 



All  of  these  matters  and  many  others — such  as 
the  administration  of  justice,  the  founding  of 
industrial  and  agricultural  banks,  the  establish- 
ment of  government  experiment  farms,  the  reve- 
nues, the  government  monopoly  in  ginseng  and 
salt  manufacture,  the  charitable  institutions — 
are  treated  in  full  in  the  volume  before  me,  and 
in  addition  to  the  letter-press  there  are  numerous 
first-rate  photographs. 

One  of  the  interesting  touches  in  the  book  is 
that  describing  the  way  tourist  parties  of  Ko- 
reans are  formed  to  visit  Japan  and  study  its  ad- 
vanced systems  of  agriculture,  industry  and  edu- 
cation. The  visits  are  generally  timed  so  as  to 
see  a  national  or  some  local  industrial  exhibition. 
Tourist  parties  of  Korean  countrymen  often 
visit  the  capital,  Keijo,  with  a  similar  educational 
purpose.  The  Japanese  are  endeavoring  to  in- 
troduce their  language,  culture  and  industry  into 
the  country,  and  are  taking  very  practical  steps 
to  introduce  the  Koreans  to  the  high  modern 
civilization  of  the  new  rulers  of  the  land. 

One  of  the  great  works  done  by  the  Japanese 
in  Korea  has  been  in  reforesting  the  country. 
This  has  been  carried  on  in  the  most  scientific 
manner — a  manner,  I  regret  to  say,  smacking 
more  of  German  efficiency  than  of  any  large- 
scale  forestry  process  in  our  own  country.  Over 
five  million  trees  have  been  planted,  the  best 



European  models  serving  as  examples.  Arbor 
Day  has  been  instituted,  and  is  celebrated  just  as 
in  various  states  of  the  American  Union,  the 
school  children  being  especially  interested.  But, 
with  their  usual  wisdom  and  far-sighted,  prac- 
tical good  sense,  the  Japanese  officials  not  only 
adopt  anything  foreign  that  may  be  useful,  but 
also  develop  anything  native  that  can  be  made 
more  useful.  The  provincial  governments  have 
devoted  much  energy  to  the  revival  of  an  ancient 
Korean  guild,  the  Songkei,  which  had  for  its 
object  the  promoting  of  interest  in  pine  forests. 
All  kinds  of  interesting  contrasts  between  the 
very  old  and  the  very  new  are  brought  out  in- 
cidentally; as,  for  example,  the  trouble  of  the 
health  authorities  with  the  Korean  "grave  geo- 
mancers,"  and  their  efforts  to  substitute  the  hy- 
gienic practice  of  cremation  for  burial. 

An  excellent  instance  of  the  kind  of  foresight 
which  ought  to  be  imitated  in  the  United  States 
is  the  action  taken  in  protecting  whales.  Whal- 
ing on  the  east  coast  of  Korea  is  very  lucrative; 
but  the  whales  have  been  over-fished;  and  the 
government  has  now  established  a  close  season, 
has  prohibited  all  whaling  outside  certain  areas, 
has  limited  the  number  of  vessels  that  can  be 
employed,  and  has  forbidden  the  capture  of 
mother  whales  accompanied  by  their  young. 

All  this  of  which  I  speak  is  only  to  indicate 


what  the  volume  tells  of  Japanese  administration 
in  Korea.  To  describe  it  fully,  and  to  comment 
on  it  with  knowledge,  would  need  an  expert.  I 
am  writing  as  the  merest  layman.  My  purpose 
is  simply  to  call  attention  to  the  matter.  It  is  to 
be  wished  that  the  Japanese  society  would  repub- 
lish  the  volume  and  make  it  generally  accessible. 

But  the  chief  lesson  it  teaches  is  one  which  by 
rights  our  people  ought  already  to  know  well. 
Japan  is  as  advanced  and  civilized  a  power  as  the 
United  States  or  any  power  in  Europe.  She  has 
as  much  to  teach  us  as  we  have  to  teach  her. 
In  true  patriotism — for  there  is  no  such  thing  as 
true  patriotism  that  does  not  include  eager  and 
foresighted  desire  to  make  one's  country  able  to 
defend  herself  against  foreign  attack — Japan  is 
far  ahead  of  us.  There  is  no  nation  in  the  world 
more  worthy  of  admiration  and  respect.  There 
is  no  nation  in  the  world  with  which  it  is  more 
important  that  the  United  States  should  be  on 
terms  of  cordial  friendship  and  absolutely  equal 
mutuality  of  respect. 

Japan's  whole  sea-front,  and  her  entire  home 
maritime  interest,  bear  on  the  Pacific;  and  of  the 
other  great  nations  of  the  earth  the  United 
States  has  the  greatest  proportion  of  her  sea- 
front  on,  and  the  greatest  proportion  of  her  in- 
terest in,  the  Pacific.  But  there  is  not  the  slight- 
est real  or  necessary  conflict  of  interests  between 



Japan  and  the  United  States  in  the  Pacific. 
When  compared  with  each  other,  the  interest 
of  Japan  is  overwhelmingly  Asiatic,  that  of  the 
United  States  overwhelmingly  American.  Rela- 
tively to  each  other,  one  is  dominant  in  Asia,  the 
other  in  North  America.  Neither  has  any  de- 
sire, nor  any  excuse  for  desiring,  to  acquire  ter- 
ritory on  the  other's  continent.  With  the  ex- 
ception of  the  Philippines,  which  the  present  Ad- 
ministration has  definitely  committed  the  United 
States  to  abandon  in  the  near  future,  the  insular 
possessions  of  each  clearly  appertain  to  their  re- 
spective continents;  Hawaii  is  almost  as  much 
American  as  Formosa  is  Asiatic.  Neither  has 
any  interest  in  the  Pacific  Ocean  itself  except 
to  keep  it  as  a  broad  highway  open  to  all.  Each 
is  a  good  customer  of  the  other.  Each  has  some- 
thing to  learn  from  and  something  to  teach  the 
other.  Each  has  every  interest  in  preserving  the 
friendship  of  the  other.  For  either  to  incur  the 
hostility  of  the  other  would  in  the  end  turn  out 
to  be  a  folly,  a  calamity  unrelieved  by  the  slight- 
est benefit.  It  may  almost  be  said  that  the  far- 
sightedness and  intelligence  of  any  citizen  of 
either  country  can  largely  be  measured  by  the 
friendly  respect  he  feels  and  shows  for  the  other 
country.  Neither  territorially,  nor  in  commer- 
cial interest,  nor  in  international  rivalry,  is  there 




any  excuse  for  clashing.  The  two  nations  should 
for  all  time  work  hand  in  hand. 

The  Japanese  statesmen  and  leaders  of  thought 
are  doing  all  they  can  to  keep  on  the  best  possible 
footing  with  the  United  States.  Although  Ja- 
pan was  engaged  in  war  she  did  everything  in 
her  power  to  make  the  California-Panama  Expo- 
sition a  success.  Her  exhibit  was  of  peculiar 
importance,  because  the  exhibits  of  most  of  the 
other  great  powers  were  greatly  interfered  with 
by  the  war. 

Every  consideration,  permanent  and  tempo- 
rary, makes  the  continuance  of  a  good  under- 
standing between  the  two  nations  of  capital 
importance.  It  is  a  grave  offence  against  the 
United  States  for  any  man,  by  word  or  deed, 
to  jeopardize  this  good  understanding.  To 
do  so  by  the  act  of  a  state  legislature  is  even 
graver.  Any  action  by  a  state  legislature 
touching  on  the  rights  of  foreigners  of  any 
other  nation  should  be  taken  with  extreme  cau- 
tion, or  it  may  cause  serious  mischief.  Such 
action  cannot  possibly  have  good  effect  on  the 
only  matter  that  can  ever  cause  trouble  between 
Japan  and  the  United  States — the  settlement  in 
mass  by  individuals  of  either  nation  within  the 
limits  of  the  other  nation.  Such  immigration 
is  the  only  thing  that  can  ever  cause  trouble  be- 
tween these  two  peoples;  and  if  permitted  it  is 



absolutely  certain  that  the  trouble  will  be  caused. 
It  can  be  dealt  with  only  by  the  two  national  gov- 
ernments themselves. 

All  true  friends  of  international  good-will  be- 
tween the  two  countries,  all  men  who  recognize 
that  good-will  for  the  other  should  be  a  prime 
feature  of  the  foreign  policy  of  each,  will  face 
this  fact  and  deal  with  it.  The  treatment  of  it 
should  be  on  an  absolutely  reciprocal  basis.  Ex- 
actly the  same  types  and  classes  should  be  admit- 
ted and  excluded,  in  one  country  as  in  the  other. 
Students,  travelers,  men  engaged  in  interna- 
tional business,  sojourners  for  scholarship,  health 
or  pleasure,  of  either  country  ought  to  be 
welcomed  in  the  other;  and  not  thus  to  wel- 
come them  indicates  defective  civilization  in  the 
should-be  hosts.  But  it  is  essentially  to  the  in- 
terest of  both  that  neither  should  admit  the  work- 
ers— industrial  or  agricultural  or  engaged  in 
small  trade — from  the  other,  for  neither  country 
is  yet  ready  to  admit  such  settlement  in  mass, 
and  nothing  but  grave  harm  can  come  from  per- 
mitting it. 

Instead  of  ignoring  this  fact,  it  would  be  bet- 
ter frankly  to  acknowledge  and  recognize  it.  It 
does  not  in  any  way  imply  any  inferiority  in 
either  nation  to  the  other ;  it  merely  connotes  the 
acceptance  of  the  truth  that  in  international  as  in 
private  affairs,  it  is  well  not  to  hurry  matters 



that  if  unhurried  will  in  the  end  come  out  all 
right.  The  astounding  thing,  the  thing  unprec- 
edented in  all  history,  is  that  two  civilized  peo- 
ples whose  civilizations  had  developed  for  thou- 
sands of  years  on  almost  wholly  independent 
lines,  should  within  half  a  century  grow  so  close 
together.  Fifty  years  ago  there  was  no  intellec- 
tual or  social  community  at  all  between  the  two 
nations.  Nowadays,  the  man  of  broad  cultiva- 
tion, whether  in  statesmanship,  science,  art  or 
philosophy,  who  dwells  in  one  country,  is  as  much 
at  home  in  the  other  as  is  a  Russian  in  England, 
or  a  Spaniard  in  the  United  States,  or  an  Italian 
in  Sweden;  the  men  of  this  type,  whether  Jap- 
anese or  Europeans,  or  North  or  South  Ameri- 
cans, are  knit  together  in  a  kind  of  freemasonry 
of  social  and  intellectual  taste. 

It  is  quite  impossible  that  a  movement  like  this 
shall  be  as  rapid  throughout  all  the  classes  of 
society  as  among  the  selected  few.  It  has  taken 
many  centuries  for  Europeans  to  achieve  a  com- 
mon standard  such  as  to  permit  of  the  free  im- 
migration of  the  workers  of  one  nation  into  an- 
other nation,  and  there  is  small  cause  for  won- 
der in  the  fact  that  a  few  decades  have  been  in- 
sufficient to  bring  it  about  between  Japan  and  the 
American  and  Australian  commonwealths.  Ja- 
pan would  not,  and  could  not,  at  this  time  afford 
to  admit  into  competition  with  her  own  people 



masses  of  immigrants,  industrial  or  agricultural 
workers,  or  miners  or  small  tradesmen,  from  the 
United  States.  It  would  be  equally  unwise  for 
the  United  States  to  admit  similar  groups  from 
Japan.  This  does  not  mean  that  either  side  is 
inferior;  it  means  that  they  are  different. 

Three  or  four  centuries  ago  exactly  the  same 
thing  was  true  as  between  and  among  the  Euro- 
pean countries  from  which  the  ancestors  of  the 
mixed  people  of  the  United  States  came.  At  that 
time  English  mobs  killed  and  drove  out  Flemish 
and  French  workingmen;  Scotchmen  would  not 
tolerate  the  presence  of  Englishmen  even  in  time 
of  peace;  Germans  and  Scandinavians  met  on 
terms  of  intimacy  only  when  they  fought  one  an- 
other; and  Russians  as  immigrants  in  western 
Europe  were  quite  as  unthinkable  as  Tartars. 
Normally,  no  one  of  these  nations  would  then 
have  tolerated  any  immigration  of  the  people  of 
any  other.  Yet  they  were  all  of  practically  the 
same  racial  blood,  and  in  essentials  of  the  same 
ancestral  culture,  that  of  Graeco-Roman  Chris- 
tianity. And  their  descendants  not  only  now  live 
side  by  side  in  the  United  States,  but  have 
merged  into  one  people.  What  would  have  been 
ruinous  even  to  attempt  four  centuries  ago  now 
seems  entirely  natural  because  it  has  gone  on  so 
slowly.  To  try  to  force  the  process  with  unnat- 
ural speed  would  have  insured  disaster,  even  af- 



ter  the  upper  classes  of  the  countries  concerned 
had  already  begun  to  mingle  on  a  footing  of 

Surely  these  obvious  historical  facts  have  their 
lesson  for  Japanese  and  American  statesmen  to- 
day. Three  centuries  ago  the  students,  the 
writers,  the  educated  and  cultivated  men  in  Eng- 
land and  France  (countries  of  equal,  and  prac- 
tically the  same,  civilization)  associated  less  in- 
timately than  the  like  men  of  America  and  Japan 
do  to-day,  and  any  attempt  at  immigration  of 
the  workers  of  one  country  into  the  other  would 
have  been  met  by  immediate  rioting.  Time,  and 
time  alone,  rendered  possible  the  constantly 
closer  association  of  the  peoples.  Time  must  be 
given  the  same  chance  now,  in  order  to  secure  a 
lasting  and  firmly  based  friendship  between  the 
Japanese  and  the  English-speaking  peoples  of 
America  and  Australia. 

The  volume  which  has  served  as  a  text  for  this 
article  is  only  one  additional  proof  of  the  way 
in  which  Japan  has  modernized  and  brought 
abreast  of  all  modern  needs  her  high  and  ancient 
civilization.  She  is  already  playing  a  very  great 
part  in  the  civilized  world.  She  will  play  a  still 
greater  part  in  the  future.  It  may  well  be  that 
she  will  prove  the  regenerator  of  all  eastern 
Asia.  She  and  the  United  States  have  great  in- 
terests on  and  in  the  Pacific.  These  interests  in 



no  way  conflict.  They  can  be  served  to  best 
purpose  for  each  nation  by  the  heartiest  and 
most  friendly  cooperation  between  them  on  a 
footing  of  absolute  equality.  There  is  but  one 
real  chance  of  friction.  This  should  be  elimi- 
nated, not  by  pretending  to  ignore  facts,  but  by 
facing  them  with  good-natured  and  courteous 
wisdom — for,  as  Emerson  somewhere  says,  "in 
the  long  run  the  most  unpleasant  truth  is  a  safer 
traveling  companion  than  the  most  agreeable 
falsehood."  Each  country  should  receive  exactly 
the  rights  which  it  grants.  Travelers,  scholars, 
men  engaged  in  international  business,  all  so- 
journers  for  health,  pleasure  and  study,  should 
be  heartily  welcomed  in  both  countries.  From 
neither  country  should  there  be  any  emigration 
of  workers  of  any  kind  to,  or  any  settlement  in 
mass  in,  the  other  country. 



IN  1903  a  shameless  and  sordid  attempt  was 
made  by  the  then  dictator  of  Colombia  and 
his  subordinate  fellow-politicians  at  Bogota  to 
force  the  United  States  by  scandalously  improper 
tactics  to  pay  a  vastly  larger  sum  for  the  priv- 
ilege of  building  the  Panama  Canal  than  had 
been  agreed  upon  in  a  solemn  treaty.  As  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  I  resisted  this  attempt, 
and  prevented  the  United  States  from  being 
blackmailed.  Had  I  not  successfully  resisted  the 
attempt,  the  Panama  Canal  would  not  now  be 
built,  and  would  probably  never  have  been  built. 
The  attempt  was  blackmail  then;  and  to  yield  to 
it  now  is  to  yield  to  blackmail. 

Yet  the  present  Administration  now  proposes 
to  pay  Colombia  twenty-five  million  dollars,  and 
to  make  what  is  practically  an  apology  for  our 
conduct  in  acquiring  the  right  to  build  the  canal. 
Apparently  this  is  done  on  the  theory  of  soothing 
the  would-be  blackmailers  and  making  them  for- 
get the  mortification  caused  them  by  the  failure 



of  their  initial  attempt  to  hold  up  the  United 

In  brief,  the  facts  in  the  case  were  as  follows: 
A  private  French  company  had  attempted  to 
build  a  canal  across  the  Isthmus  of  Panama,  and 
had  failed  after  making  only  a  beginning  of  the 
work.  Various  propositions  for  a  trans-Isthmian 
canal  to  be  undertaken  by  the  United  States  Gov- 
ernment had  been  made.  One  of  these  was  to 
cross  the  Isthmus  at  Darien.  Another  was  a 
proposition  to  go  through  Nicaragua.  Different 
companies  had  been  organized  in  the  United 
States  to  back  these  different  propositions.  One 
of  these  companies  had  ex-Senator  Warner  Mil- 
ler at  its  head.  The  then  Senator  Platt  of  New 
York  was  much  interested  in  another  company. 
Congress  only  considered  seriously,  however,  the 
Panama  and  Nicaragua  routes,  and  was  in  much 
doubt  between  them.  A  commission  of  experts 
appointed  by  the  President  for  that  purpose  had 
reported  that  if  we  could  buy  the  rights  of  the 
French  canal  company  for  $40,000,000  we  ought 
to  take  the  Panama  route,  but  that  otherwise  we 
should  take  the  Nicaragua  route.  It  was  at  that 
time  well  and  widely  known  that  the  sum  of 
$10,000,000  (aside  from  a  small  yearly  payment 
to  be  made  on  different  grounds)  was  all  that  we 
would  pay  or  would  be  asked  to  pay  Colombia, 
and  Colombia  herself  had  advertised  this  fact. 



The  recommendation,  therefore,  was  in  effect 
that  we  should  go  by  Panama  if  we  could  acquire 
our  rights  by  paying  $40,000,000  to  the  French 
and  $10,000,000  to  the  Colombians. 

The  French  had  real  rights.  They  had  spent 
hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars,  and  although 
much  of  this  had  been  wasted,  yet  we  received 
at  least  $40,000,000  worth  of  property  and  of  ac- 
complished work  for  the  $40,000,000  we  agreed 
to  pay  them.  Colombia  had  no  rights  that  were 
not  of  the  most  shadowy  and  unsubstantial  kind; 
and  even  these  shadowy  rights  existed  only  be- 
cause of  the  action  of  the  United  States.  She 
had  done  nothing  whatever  except  to  misgovern 
the  Isthmus  for  fifty  years.  During  these  fifty 
years  her  possession  of  the  Isthmus  as  against 
foreign  powers  had  been  maintained  solely  by  the 
guarantee  and  the  potential  strength  of  the 
United  States.  The  only  effective  policing  of  the 
Isthmus  during  those  fifty  years  had  been  done 
by  the  United  States  on  the  frequent  occasions 
when  it  was  forced  to  land  marines  and  sailors 
for  that  purpose.  Ten  million  dollars  repre- 
sented the  very  outside  limit  which  generosity 
could  fix  as  a  payment  to  Colombia  for  rights 
which  she  was  impotent  to  maintain  save  by  our 
assistance  and  protection,  and  for  an  opportunity 
which  she  was  utterly  unable  herself  to  develop. 
Nobody  of  any  consequence  in  the  United  States, 



within  or  without  Congress,  would  at  that  time 
for  one  moment  have  considered  agreeing  to  pay 
$25,000,000  or  any  sum  remotely  approaching  it. 

If  Colombia  had  at  that  time  announced  any 
such  demand,  unquestionably  the  Congress  of 
the  United  States  would  have  directed  the  Execu- 
tive to  take  the  Nicaragua  route.  The  exact 
language  of  Congress  in  its  Act  providing  for 
the  construction  of  the  canal,  approved  June  28, 
1902,  was  that  if  "the  President  be  unable  to 
obtain  for  the  United  States  a  satisfactory  title 
to  the  property  of  the  New  Panama  Canal  Com- 
pany and  the  control  of  the  necessary  territory  of 
the  Republic  of  Colombia  within  a  reasonable 
time  and  upon  reasonable  terms,  then  the  Presi- 
dent" should  endeavor  to  provide  for  a  canal  by 
the  Nicaragua  route. 

This  language  defined  with  exactness  and  pre- 
cision what  was  to  be  done,  and  what  as  a  matter 
of  fact  I  actually  did.  I  was  directed  to  take  the 
Nicaragua  route,  but  only  if  within  a  reasonable 
time  I  could  not  obtain  control  of  the  necessary 
territory  of  the  Republic  of  Colombia  upon  rea- 
sonable terms ;  the  direction  being  explicit  that  if 
I  could  not  thus  get  the  control  within  a  reason- 
able time  and  upon  reasonable  terms  I  must  go 
to  Nicaragua.  Colombia  showed  by  its  actions 
that  it  was  thoroughly  acquainted  with  this  fact, 
and  eagerly  demanded  and  entered  into  a  treaty 



with  the  United  States,  the  Hay-Herran  treaty, 
under  which  $10,000,000  was  the  price  stipu- 
lated to  be  paid  in  exchange  for  our  acquiring 
the  right  to  the  zone  on  which  to  build  the  canal. 

Let  it  be  remembered  that  this  $10,000,000 
was  the  price  stipulated  by  Colombia  herself  as 
payment  to  those  in  possession  of  the  Isthmus, 
and  it  was  the  price  we  actually  did  pay  to  those 
who  actually  were  in  possession  of  the  Isthmus. 
The  only  difference  was  that,  thanks  to  the  most 
just  and  proper  revolution  which  freed  Panama 
from  the  intolerable  oppression  and  wrongdoing 
of  Colombia,  we  were  able  to  give  this  $10,000,- 
ooo  to  the  men  who  themselves  dwelt  on  the  Isth- 
mus, instead  of  to  alien  taskmasters  and  oppres- 
sors of  theirs. 

The  proposal  now  is  that  after  having  paid 
$10,000,000  to  the  rightful  owners  of  the  Isth- 
mus we  shall  in  addition  pay  $25,000,000  to  their 
former  taskmasters  and  oppressors;  a  sum  two 
and  a  half  times  what,  these  tricky  oppressors 
originally  asked,  a  sum  which  is  to  be  paid  to 
them  merely  because  they  failed  in  carrying  to 
successful  completion  what  must  truthfully  be 
characterized  as  a  bit  of  international  villainy  as 
wicked  as  it  was  preposterous.  In  point  of  good 
sense  and  sound  morality,  the  proposal  is  exactly 
on  a  par  with  paying  a  discomfited  burglar  a 
heavy  sum  for  the  damage  done  his  feelings  by 



detecting  him  and  expelling  him  from  the  house. 

Our  people  should  also  remember  that  what  we 
were  paying  for  was  the  right  to  expend  our 
own  money  and  our  own  labor  to  do  a  piece  of 
work  which  if  left  undone  would  render  the 
Isthmus  of  Panama  utterly  valueless.  If  we  had 
gone  to  Nicaragua,  or  had  undertaken  to  build 
a  canal  anywhere  else  across  the  Isthmus,  then 
the  right  which  Colombia  was  so  eager  to  sell 
for  $10,000,000  would  not  have  been  worth  ten 
cents.  The  whole  value  was  created  by  our  pros- 
pective action;  and  this  action  was  to  be  taken 
wholly  at  our  own  expense  and  without  making 
Colombia  or  any  one  else  pay  a  dollar,  and  this 
although  no  power  would  benefit  more  by  the 
canal  than  Colombia,  as  it  would  give  her  water- 
way communication  by  a  short  and  almost  direct 
route  between  her  Caribbean  and  Pacific  ports. 

The  people  of  the  United  States  should  remem- 
ber that  the  United  States  paid  $50,000,000  to 
Panama  and  the  French  company  for  every  real 
right  of  every  sort  or  description  which  existed 
on  the  Isthmus.  There  would  have  been  no  value 
even  to  these  rights  unless  for  the  action  that  the 
United  States  then  intended  to  take,  and  has 
since  actually  taken.  The  property  of  the  French 
company  would  not  have  been  worth  any  more 
than  any  other  scrap  heap  save  for  our  subse- 
quent action,  and  the  right  to  cross  the  Isthmus 



of  Panama  would  have  been  valueless  to  Colom- 
bia or  to  any  other  nation  or  body  of  men  if  we 
had  failed  to  build  a  canal  across  it  and  had  built 
one  somewhere  else.  The  whole  value  then  and 
now  of  any  right  upon  that  Isthmus  depended 
upon  the  fact  that  we  then  intended  to  spend  and 
now  have  spent  in  building  the  canal  some  $375,- 

The  proposal  of  Mr.  Wilson's  Administration 
is  that,  having  given  to  the  Isthmus  of  Panama 
its  whole  present  value  by  the  expenditure  of 
$375,000,000,  we  shall  now  pay  $25,000,000  ad- 
ditional to  the  power  that  did  its  best  to  prevent 
the  Isthmus  from  having  any  value  by  treacher- 
ously depriving  us  of  the  right  to  build  the  canal 
at  all,  or  to  spend  a  dollar  on  the  Isthmus.  If 
Colombia's  action  had  been  successful,  the  Isth- 
mus would  now  be  worthless;  and  yet  the  pres- 
ent Administration  actually  proposes  to  pay  her 
$25,000,000  so  as  to  atone  to  her  for  our  not 
having  permitted  her  to  follow  a  course  of  con- 
duct which  would  have  prevented  the  Isthmus 
from  being  worth  twenty-five  cents. 

Most  people,  when  we  began  the  building  of 
the  canal,  believed  that  we  would  fail.  There 
were  plenty  of  such  skeptics  in  this  country,  and 
a  much  larger  number  abroad.  If  the  American 
engineers  had  not  been  successful,  if  the  Ameri- 
can people  had  not  backed  them  with  money,  and 



if  the  Government  had  not  started  the  work  on 
a  basis  of  absolutely  non-partisan  efficiency, 
there  would  exist  nothing  for  which  to  pay  any 
sum  at  the  present  moment.  This  proposed 
treaty  is  a  proposal  to  pay  blackmail  to  that 
Government  which  sought  in  vain  to  forbid  us 
to  use  our  national  efficiency  in  the  interest  of 
the  world  at  large. 

I  cannot  too  strongly  emphasize  the  fact  that 
Panama  represented  to  Colombia  an  asset  of  no 
value  whatsoever  save  such  as  might  accrue  from 
the  action  which  we  were  ready  to  undertake  at 
great  expense.  She  enjoyed  this  asset  at  all  only 
because  of  our  guaranteeing  her  against  having 
it  taken  away  from  her  by  any  foreign  power. 
We  had  never  guaranteed  her  against  a  move- 
ment for  independence  on  the  Isthmus,  or  against 
action  on  our  own  part  if  she  misbehaved  her- 
self. Presidents  and  secretaries  of  state  had 
repeatedly  given  the  true  interpretation  of  the 
obligations  to  New  Granada  (the  South  Ameri- 
can republic  which  then  included  the  present  Re- 
public of  Colombia)  by  the  treaty  of  1846.  In 
1856  Secretary  Cass  officially  stated  the  position 
of  the  Government  as  follows : 

Sovereignty  has  its  duties  as  well  as  its 

rights,  and  none  of  these  local  governments 

(on  the  Isthmus)  would  be  permitted  in  a 

spirit  of  Eastern  isolation  to  close  the  gates 



of  intercourse  on  the  great  highways  of  the 
world,  and  justify  the  act  by  the  pretension 
that  these  avenues  of  trade  and  travel  be- 
long to  them  and  that  they  choose  to  shut 
them,  or  what  is  almost  equivalent,  to  en- 
cumber them  with  such  unjust  relations  as 
would  prevent  their  general  use. 

Seven  years  later  Secretary  Seward  in  differ- 
ent communications  explicitly  stated  that  the 
United  States  had  not  undertaken  any  duty  in 
connection  with  "any  question  of  internal  revo- 
lution in  the  state  of  Panama"  but  merely  "to 
protect  the  transit  trade  across  the  Isthmus 
against  invasion  of  either  domestic  or  foreign 
disturbers ;"  and  that  the  United  States  had  not 
"become  bound  to  take  sides  in  the  domestic 
broils  of  New  Granada"  but  merely  to  protect 
New  Granada  "as  against  other  and  foreign  gov- 
ernments." In  the  final  portion  of  my  message 
to  Congress  of  December  7,  1903,  and  in  my 
special  message  to  Congress  of  January  4,  1904, 
I  enumerated  a  partial  list  of  revolutions,  insur- 
rections, disturbances  and  other  outbreaks  that 
had  occurred  on  the  Isthmus  of  Panama  during 
the  fifty-three  years  preceding  the  negotiation  of 
our  treaty  with  the  Republic  of  Panama  itself. 
These  revolutions,  unsuccessful  rebellions  and 
other  outbreaks  numbered  just  fifty-three  during 
these  fifty-three  years. 


In  detail  they  are  as  follows : 

May  22,  1850. — Outbreak;  two  Americans 
killed.  War  vessel  demanded  to  quell  outbreak. 

October,  1850. — Revolutionary  plot  to  brings 
about  independence  of  the  Isthmus. 

July  22,  1851. — Revolution  in  four  southern 

November  14,  1851. — Outbreak  at  Chagres. 
Man-of-war  requested  for  Chagres. 

June  27,  1853. — Insurrection  at  Bogota  and 
consequent  disturbance  on  Isthmus.  War  vessel 

May  23,  1854. — Political  disturbances.  War 
vessel  requested. 

June  28,  1854. — Attempted  revolution. 

October  24,  1854. — Independence  of  Isthmus 
demanded  by  provincial  legislature. 

April,  1856. — Riot  and  massacre  of  Ameri- 

May  4,   1856. — Riot. 

May  18,  1856.— Riot. 

June  3,  1856. — Riot. 

October  2,  1856. — Conflict  between  two  native 
parties.  United  States  forces  landed. 

December  18,  1858. — Attempted  secession  of 

April,  1859. — Riots. 

September,   1860. — Outbreaks. 


October  4,  1860. — Landing  of  United  States 
forces  in  consequence. 

May  23,  1861. — Intervention  of  the  United 
States  forces  required  by  intendente. 

October  2,  1861. — Insurrection  and  civil  war. 

April  4,  1862. — Measures  to  prevent  rebels 
crossing  Isthmus. 

June  13,  1862. — Mosquera's  troops  refused  ad- 
mittance to  Panama. 

March,  1865. — Revolution,  and  United  States 
troops  landed. 

August,  1865. — Riots;  unsuccessful  attempt  to 
invade  Panama. 

March,  1866. — Unsuccessful  revolution. 

April,  1867. — Attempt  to  overthrow  Govern- 

August,  1867. — Attempt  at  revolution. 

July  5,  1868. — Revolution;  provisional  govern- 
ment inaugurated. 

August  29,  1868. — Revolution;  provisional 
government  overthrown. 

April,  1871. — Revolution;  followed  apparently 
by  counter  revolution. 

April,  1873. — Revolution  and  civil  war  which 
lasted  to  October,  1875. 

August,  1876. — Civil  war  which  lasted  until 
April,  1877. 

July,  1878.— Rebellion. 

December,  1878. — Revolt. 


April,  1879. — Revolution. 

June,  1879. — Revolution. 

March,  1883.— Riot. 

May,  1883.— Riot. 

June,  1884. — Revolutionary  attempt. 

December,  1884. — Revolutionary  attempt. 

January,  1885. — Revolutionary  disturbances. 

March,  1885. — Revolution. 

April,  1887. — Disturbance  on  Panama  Rail- 

November,  1887. — Disturbance  on  line  of 

January,  1889. — Riot. 

January,  1895. — Revolution  which  lasted  until 

March,  1895. — Incendiary  attempt. 

October,  1899. — Revolution. 

February,  1900,  to  July,  1900. — Revolution. 

January,  1901. — Revolution. 

July,  1901. — Revolutionary  disturbances. 

September,  1901. — City  of  Colon  taken  by 

March,  1902. — Revolutionary  disturbances. 

July,  1902. — Revolution. 

Colombia  had  shown  herself  utterly  incapable 
of  keeping  order  on  the  Isthmus.  Only  the  ac- 
tive interference  of  the  United  States  had  en- 
abled her  to  preserve  so  much  as  a  semblance  of 
sovereignty.  In  1856,  in  1860,  and  in  1873,  in 



1885,  in  1901,  and  in  1902,  sailors  and  marines 
from  United  States  warships  were  forced  to  land 
in  order  to  protect  life  and  property  and  to  see 
that  the  transit  across  the  Isthmus  was  kept  open. 
In  1 86 1,  in  1862,  in  1885,  and  in  1900,  the  Colom- 
bia Government  asked  for  the  landing  of  troops 
by  the  United  States  Government  to  protect  its 
interests  and  to  maintain  order  on  the  Isthmus. 
Immediately  after  the  revolution  by  which  Pan- 
ama obtained  its  independence  in  1903,  the  Co- 
lombian Government  made  another  request  to 
land  troops  to  preserve  Colombian  sovereignty. 

This  request  was  made  through  General  Reyes, 
afterward  President  of  the  republic.  President 
Marroquin  in  making  the  request  offered  if  we 
would  grant  it,  to  "approve  by  decree"  the  rati- 
fication of  the  Hay-Herran  canal  treaty  as 
signed,  acting  thus  "by  virtue  of  vested  consti- 
tutional authority,"  or  if  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  preferred,  to  call  an  extra  session 
of  Congress  "with  new  and  friendly  members" 
to  approve  the  treaty. 

This  dispatch  has  an  especial  interest.  In  the 
first  place,  it  requested  the  United  States  to  re- 
store order  and  secure  Colombia  supremacy  on 
the  very  Isthmus  from  which  the  Colombian 
Government  had  just  decided  to  bar  us  by  pre- 
venting the  construction  of  the  canal.  In  the 
second  place,  by  the  offer  made  it  showed  that  the 


constitutional  objections  which  had  been  urged 
against  ratifying  the  treaty  were  obviously  not 
made  in  good  faith,  and  that  the  Government 
which  made  the  treaty  really  had  absolute  con- 
trol over  its  ratification,  but  chose  to  exercise 
that  control  adversely  to  us.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  whatever  duty  we  had  in  the  peninsula  was 
to  the  Panamanians  and  not  to  the  Colombians  at 
all.  As  John  Hay  put  it,  "the  covenant  ran  with 
the  land."  Our  original  treaty  was  with  the 
United  States  of  New  Granada.  This  body  suf- 
fered various  changes,  various  portions  splitting 
off  and  sometimes  rejoining,  and  finally  the  Re- 
public of  Colombia  succeeded  to  most  of  it.  We, 
however,  recognized  whatever  power  was  in  law- 
ful possession  of  the  Isthmus,  as  the  successor 
of  the  one  with  which  we  had  made  the  treaty. 

In  the  constitutions  of  1858  and  1861,  Panama 
explicitly  reserved  the  right  to 'secede  from  the 
confederation  and  to  nullify  any  act  inconsistent 
with  its  own  "autonomy."  Colombia  later  pub- 
lished a  new  constitution  by  Executive  Decree, 
reducing  Panama  to  the  condition  of  a  crown 
colony;  but  Panama  never  accepted  this  action 
as  proper,  and  when  in  1903  it  set  up  an  inde- 
pendent government  by  unanimous  action  of  her 
citizens,  they  were  merely  reasserting  the  con- 
stitutional and  legal  rights  which  they  had  never 


As  Secretary  Root  wrote  the  Colombian  Min- 
ister in  1906,  our  action  in  recognizing  the  inde- 
pendence of  Panama  was  merely  "a  recognition 
of  the  just  rights  of  the  people  of  Panama."  On 
technical  grounds  Panama's  case  was  clear,  Co- 
lombia had  no  case  whatever,  and  the  United 
States  was  bound  to  act  as  she  did  act.  Morally, 
of  course,  there  is  no  question  whatever  that 
Panama's  action  was  imperatively  demanded  and 
that  the  United  States  would  have  been  guilty 
of  culpable  misconduct  toward  an  oppressed  peo- 
ple if  she  had  failed  to  support  Panama. 

I  wish  to  emphasize  the  nature  of  the  Colom- 
bian Government  at  the  time  when  Panama  de- 
clared her  independence.  It  was  a  pure  dictator- 
ship. This  was  no  concern  of  ours;  for  I  hold 
it  is  not  our  affair  to  say  to  another  nation  what 
kind  of  government  it  shall  have  save  in  so  far 
as  the  rights  of  our  own  citizens  or  of  our  own 
Government  are  concerned.  The  then  Presi- 
dent, Mr.  Marroquin,  had  been  elected  as  vice- 
president.  Soon  after  his  inauguration  by  a  coup 
d'etat  he  unseated  the  President  and  put  him  in 
prison.  He  then  announced  that  under  the  Con- 
stitution, in  the  absence  of  the  President,  the 
vice-president  wielded  all  the  executive  powers. 
Accordingly  he  exercised  them. 

In  a  few  months  the  absence  of  the  President 
became  permanent,  for  he  opportunely  died  in 


prison,  and  Mr.  Marroquin  continued  to  act  as 
President.  He  declined  to  call  Congress  together 
for  a  period  in  the  neighborhood  of  five  years, 
and  announced  that  under  the  Constitution  in 
the  absence  of  Congress  he  possessed  all  the  leg- 
islative functions.  Accordingly  he  exercised 
these  also.  He  was  careful  to  explain  that  his 
course  was  entirely  "constitutional"  and  that  it 
was  in  accordance  with  the  mandate  of  the  Con- 
stitution that  he  who  had  been  elected  vice-presi- 
dent exercised  all  the  functions  both  of  Presi- 
dent and  of  Congress.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  while 
he  did  not  permit  any  elections  to  take  place  for 
a  number  of  years,  yet  his  power  was  so  absolute 
that  he  elected  whomever  he  wished  as  soon  as 
the  election  did  take  place ;  as  already  related,  he 
notified  me,  when  it  became  to  his  interest  to  do 
so,  that  he  would  elect  a  Congress  with  a  guar- 
antee that  it  would  perform  what  he  desired  in 
case  I  would  be  satisfied  therewith. 

Having  this  absolute  power  not  only  to  initiate 
but  to  ratify  and  carry  out  any  treaty,  he,  through 
Mr.  Herran,  negotiated  with  Mr.  Hay  a  treaty 
with  the  United  States  Government  which  con- 
ceded us  the  right  to  take  the  Panama  Canal  zone 
and  build  the  canal  for  the  sum  of  $10,000,000. 
(I  disregard  the  minor  details  of  the  treaty.) 
He  was  exceedingly  anxious  to  negotiate  this 
treaty  because  it  was  a  matter  vital  to  Panama, 



and  therefore  of  concern  to  the  absentee  owners 
of  Panama ;  for  if  the  treaty  were  not  negotiated 
it  was  certain  that  the  United  States  would  go 
to  Nicaragua.  Having  this  treaty,  and  having 
received  from  the  French  company  the  assurance 
that  they  would  sell  us  that  property  for 
$40,000,000,  we  selected  the  Panama  route.  As 
soon  as  we  had  done  this  Mr.  Marroquin  and  his 
associates  concluded  that  we  were  hopelessly  com- 
mitted, and  that  it  was  safe  for  him  to  repudiate 
his  promise  and  try  to  extort  more  money.  Un- 
der its  original  contract  the  time  during  which 
the  French  company  had  to  complete  the  canal 
lapsed  the  following  year.  Colombia  had 
granted  an  extension  of  some  years;  but  Mr. 
Marroquin  and  his  associates  now  announced 
that  this  extension  of  time,  which  they  had  them- 
selves given,  was  unconstitutional. 

Again  I  wish  to  call  attention  to  the  solemn 
farce,  the  contemptible  farce,  of  these  men  ap- 
pealing to  the  Constitution  as  a  make-believe 
fetish,  when  the  entire  governmental  power  of 
the  nation  was  vested  at  the  moment  in  an  irre- 
sponsible dictator  who  had  never  been  elected  to 
the  office  of  President  at  all,  who  refused  to  sum- 
mon Congress,  and  who  yet  exercised  all  its  pow- 
ers in  the  absence  of  Congress.  It  was  dishonest 
on  their  part  thus  to  talk  of  the  Constitution,  and 



it  is  an  act  of  unspeakable  silliness  for  any  of  our 
people  to  take  that  talk  seriously. 

Accordingly  Marroquin  summoned  a  Con- 
gress, the  only  one  that  had  been  held  under  his 
Administration.  It  was  an  absolutely  obsequious 
body.  It  did  not  attempt  to  pass  a  law,  or  do 
anything  but  repudiate  the  proposed  treaty.  Its 
committee,  in  the  report  which  the  Congress 
adopted,  announced  the  real  object  of  their  ac- 
tion when  it  said  that  the  following  year  the 
rights  of  the  French  company  would  lapse  and 
Colombia  would  take  possession  of  the  French 
company's  belongings,  and  then  would  be  in  a 
"more  advantageous"  position  to  negotiate  with 
the  United  States.  In  other  words,  they  expected 
to  combine  piracy  with  blackmail,  and  to  take 
possession  of  the  French  company's  belongings 
and  get  from  us  the  $40,000,000  we  were  to  pay 
the  French.  Of  course  France  would  never  have 
allowed  this,  and  if  I  had  acted  with  the  pliant 
submission  to  Colombia's  demand  which  the  pres- 
ent Administration  is  at  this  moment  showing, 
we  would  have  had  on  the  Isthmus  France  in- 
stead of  Colombia,  and  the  difficulty  and  danger 
of  the  whole  problem  would  have  been  infinitely 

The  Congress  as  well  as  the  Dictator  had  am- 
ple warning  of  all  the  dangers  they  by  their  ac- 
tion were  inviting.  Representatives  from  Pan- 



ama  warned  the  Colombian  Administration  that 
Panama  would  revolt  if  the  treaty  was  rejected; 
and  our  Department  of  State  in  the  gravest  man- 
ner called  their  attention  to  the  serious  situation 
their  conduct  would  create. 

Our  Minister,  Mr.  Beaupre,  an  admirable  pub- 
lic servant,  who — unlike  his  successor  who  nego- 
tiated the  preposterous  treaty  now  before  the 
Senate — conceived  himself  under  obligation 
faithfully  to  represent  the  interests  of  the  Amer- 
ican people,  encountered  great  difficulties  while 
endeavoring  to  perform  his  duties  at  this  time. 
The  State  Department's  messages  to  him  were 
intercepted,  and  in  several  cases  not  delivered, 
as  shown  in  his  cable  to  Hay  of  August  6,  1903 ; 
and  he  was  directed  by  the  Department  of  State 
to  protest  against  such  interference  with  his  of- 
ficial communications.  Mr.  Beaupre  showed  con- 
clusively in  his  correspondence  that  the  delay  in 
dealing  with  the  Panama  Canal  treaty  by  Colom- 
bia was  for  the  purpose  of  wringing  money  from 
either  the  French  company  or  the  United  States, 
or  both. 

For  example,  in  his  message  of  June  10,  1903, 
he  stated  that  the  local  agent  of  the  Panama  Ca- 
nal Company  had  informed  him  that  he  had  re- 
ceived an  official  note  from  the  Colombian  Gov- 
ernment stating  that  the  treaty  would  be  rejected 
unless  the  French  company  paid  Colombia 



$10,000,000.  This  shows  that  the  Colombian 
Government  then  expected  only  twenty  millions 
all  told — ten  legitimately  from  us  and  ten  as  an 
extorted  bribe  from  the  unfortunate  French  com- 
pany. President  Wilson  now  proposes  to  give 
five  millions  extra,  apparently  to  soothe  the  feel- 
ings of  those  who  failed  to  extort  a  smaller  sum 
by  scandalously  improper  methods. 

In  his  message  of  July  21,  Minister  Beaupre 
reported  that  the  Colombian  Government  had 
sounded  both  Germany  and  England  to  see  if  they 
could  not  be  persuaded  to  construct,  or  aid  in  the 
construction  of,  the  canal  in  place  of  the  United 
States.  The  Government  of  Colombia,  there- 
fore, not  only  sought  to  blackmail  us  and  to 
blackmail  the  French  company,  but  endeavored 
to  put  one  of  the  great  Old  World  powers  on  the 
Isthmus  in  possession  of  the  canal.  And  because 
the  then  Administration  refused  to  submit  to 
such  infamy  on  the  part  of  Colombia,  the  pres- 
ent Administration  actually  proposes  to  pay  the 
wrongdoer  $25,000,000  of  blackmail. 

There  are  in  every  great  country  a  few  men 
whose  mental  or  moral  make-up  is  such  that  they 
always  try  to  smirch  their  own  people,  and  some- 
times go  to  the  length  of  moral  treason  in  the 
effort  to  discredit  their  own  national  government. 
A  campaign  of  mendacity  was  started  against 
this  treaty  from  the  outset  by  certain  public  men 



and  certain  newspapers.  One  of  the  favorite 
assertions  of  these  men  and  newspapers  was  that 
the  United  States  Government  had  in  some  way 
or  other  instigated,  and  through  its  agents  been 
privy  to,  the  revolutionary  movement  on  the  Isth- 
mus. The  statement  is  a  deliberate  falsehood, 
and  every  man  who  makes  it  knows  that  it  is  a 
falsehood.  Mr.  H.  A.  Gudger,  late  Chief  Judge 
of  the  Department  of  Panama,  was  consul  in 
Panama  at  the  time,  and  had  been  consul  for 
six  years  previously.  It  was  impossible  for  any 
such  encouragement  or  aid  by  the  United  States 
Government  of  the  revolutionary  movement  to 
have  occurred  without  his  knowledge,  and  he  has 
explicitly  stated  that  he  did  not  know  of  any 
such  encouragement. 

Mr.  Hay,  on  behalf  of  the  State  Department, 
made  an  exactly  similar  statement  to  me  at  the 
same  time.  I  repeated  the  statement  in  my  mes- 
sage to  Congress.  The  simple  truth,  as  every- 
body with  any  knowledge  knew  at  the  time,  was 
that  the  Isthmus  was  seething  with  revolution, 
and  that  a  revolution  was  certain  to  occur  if  the 
treaty  were  rejected.  Minister  Beaupre  notified 
us  that  the  Panama  delegates  in  the  Congress 
during  the  debates  about  the  treaty,  had  in- 
formed the  Congress  explicitly  that  such  would 
be  the  case.  The  newspapers  of  the  United  States 
repeatedly  published  news  from  Panama  stating 



that  such  revolutions  were  impending.  Quota- 
tions from  the  daily  papers  could  be  multiplied 
to  prove  this.  It  is  only  necessary  to  refer  to  the 
Washington  Post  of  August  31  and  of  Septem- 
ber i,  the  New  York  Herald  of  September  10,  the 
New  York  Times  of  September  13,  the  New  York 
Herald  of  October  26,  the  Washington  Post  of 
October  29,  the  New  York  Herald  of  October  30 
and  of  November  2 ;  all  of  the  year  1903. 

In  my  special  message  to  Congress  of  January 
4,  1904, 1  described  the  report  made  to  me  at  the 
request  of  Lieutenant-General  Young  by  Captain 
Humphrey  and  Lieutenant  Murphy  of  the  Army, 
who  in  the  course  of  a  visit  which  on  their  own 
initiative  (and  without  my  knowledge)  they  had 
made  to  Panama,  had  discovered  that  various 
revolutionary  movements  were  being  inaugu- 
rated, and  that  a  revolution  would  certainly 
occur,  possibly  immediately  after  the  closing  of 
the  Colombian  Congress  at  the  end  of  October, 
but  probably  not  before  early  November.  This 
definitely  localized  the  probability  of  the  revo- 
lution taking  place  somewhere  during  the  last 
ten  days  of  October,  or  the  first  week  in  No- 
vember. This  was  known  on  the  Isthmus.  It 
was  known  to  the  American  newspapers.  It  was 
also  known  at  Bogota,  where  measures  were 
taken  to  meet  the  situation.  If  it  had  not  been 
known  to  the  President  and  to  the  Secretary  of 



State,  they  would  have  shown  themselves  culp- 
ably unfit  for  their  positions. 

After  my  interview  with  the  army  officers 
named,  on  October  16  I  directed  the  Navy  De- 
partment to  issue  instructions  to  send  ships  to  the 
Isthmus  so  as  to  protect  American  interests  and 
the  lives  of  American  citizens  if  a  revolutionary 
outbreak  should  occur.  Most  fortunately  the 
United  States  steamer  Nashville,  under  Com- 
mander Hubbard,  in  consequence  of  these  orders, 
reached  the  Isthmus  just  in  time  to  prevent  a 
bloody  massacre  of  American  men,  women  and 
children.  Troops  from  Bogota  had  already  been 
landed  in  Colon  on  November  3,  when  the  revo- 
lution broke  out  on  the  same  day.  On  November 
4,  as  Commander  Hubbard  officially  reported,  his 
marines  were  landed,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the 
American  Consul  had  been  notified  by  the  officer 
commanding  the  Colombia  troops  that  he  in- 
tended to  open  fire  on  the  town  of  Colon  at  2 
p.  m.  and  kill  every  United  States  citizen  in  the 
place.  Accordingly  various  men,  women  and 
children  took  refuge  first  in  the  shed  of  the  Pan- 
ama Railway  Company,  and  then  on  a  German 
steamer  and  a  Panama  Railway  steamer  which 
were  at  the  dock.  Commander  Hubbard  showed 
himself  loyal  to  the  best  traditions  of  the  Ameri- 
can Navy.  He  brought  the  Nashville  close  up  to 
the  water-front,  landed  some  of  his  men  to  gar- 



risen  the  shed  of  the  Panama  Railway  Company, 
and  although  the  Colombians  outnumbered  him 
ten  to  one,  succeeded  in  protecting  the  lives  of  the 
American  citizens  who  were  menaced.  Thanks 
to  the  firmness  of  himself  and  his  men,  he  so  im- 
pressed the  Colombian  commander  that  next  day 
the  latter  reembarked  and  withdrew  with  his 
troops  to  Colombia. 

So  far  from  there  having  been  too  much  fore- 
sight about  the  revolution  on  the  part  of  the 
American  Government,  this  plain  official  account 
by  a  naval  officer  of  what  occurred  on  November 
4  showed  that  the  American  Government  had,  if 
anything,  delayed  too  long  its  orders  for  the 
movement  of  American  warships  to  Panama,  and 
that  it  was  only  the  coolness  and  gallantry  of 
forty-two  marines  and  sailors  in  the  face  of  ten 
times  their  number  of  armed  foes  that  prevented 
the  carrying  out  of  the  atrocious  threat  of  the 
Colombian  commander.  In  accordance  with  our 
settled  principles  of  conduct  we  refused  to  allow 
the  transportation  of  troops  across  the  Isthmus 
by  either  the  Colombians  or  the  Panamanians, 
so  as  to  prevent  bloodshed  and  interference  with 

No  one  connected  with  this  Government  had 
any  part  in  preparing,  inciting  or  encouraging 
the  revolution  on  the  Isthmus  of  Panama.  Save 
from  the  reports  of  our  military  and  naval  offi- 



cers  given  in  full  in  the  message  of  the  President 
to  the  Senate,  and  from  the  official  reports  in  the 
Department  of  State,  no  one  connected  with  the 
Government  had  any  previous  knowledge  of  the 
revolution  except  such  as  was  accessible  to  any 
person  of  ordinary  intelligence  who  read  the 
newspapers  and  kept  up  a  current  acquaintance 
with  public  affairs. 

Secretary  of  State  John  Hay  stated  officially 
at  the  time : 

The  action  of  the  President  in  the 
Panama  matter  is  not  only  in  the  strictest 
accordance  with  the  best  precedents  of  our 
public  policy,  but  it  was  the  only  course  he 
could  have  taken  in  compliance  with  our 
treaty  rights  and  obligations. 

I  saw  at  the  time  very  many  men,  Americans, 
natives  of  Panama,  and  Europeans,  all  of  whom 
told  me  that  they  believed  a  revolution  was  im- 
pending, and  most  of  whom  asked  me  to  take 
sides  one  way  or  the  other.  The  most  noted  of 
these  men  whom  I  now  recollect  seeing  was  Mr. 
Bunau-Varilla.  He,  however,  did  not  ask  me  to 
take  sides  one  way  or  the  other.  To  no  one  of 
these  men  did  I  give  any  private  assurance  of  any 
kind  one  way  or  the  other,  referring  them  simply 
to  my  published  declarations  and  acts. 

For  some  reason  certain  newspapers  have  re- 


peatedly  stated  that  Mr.  Nelson  Cromwell  was 
responsible  for  the  revolution.  I  do  not  remem- 
ber whether  Mr.  Nelson  Cromwell  was  or  was 
not  among  my  callers  during  the  months  immedi- 
ately preceding  the  revolution.  But  if  he  was  I 
certainly  did  not  discuss  with  him  anything  con- 
nected with  the  revolution.  I  do  not  remember 
his  ever  speaking  to  me  about  the  revolution  until 
after  it  occurred,  and  my  understanding  was, 
and  is,  that  he  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with 
the  revolutionary  movement  which  actually  took 

There  were,  as  I  have  said,  various  revolution- 
ary movements  on  foot  in  the  Isthmus,  and  it  was 
my  understanding  that  there  was  considerable 
jealousy  among  the  instigators  of  these  move- 
ments as  to  which  one  would  come  off  first  and 
would  be  effective.  On  information  received  af- 
ter the  event,  I  believed  then,  and  believe  now, 
that  the  revolutionary  movement  which  actually 
succeeded  was  the  one  with  which  Mr.  Bunau- 
Varilla  was  connected.  He  was  sent  by  the  Gov- 
ernment of  Panama  as  Minister  to  this  country 
as  soon  as  Panama  became  an  independent  state, 
and  he  then  made  no  secret  of  the  fact  that  he 
had  been  one  of  those  who  had  organized  the  suc- 
cessful revolution;  precisely  as  was  the  case  with 
the  President  and  other  officials  of  the  new  re- 
public. Neither  did  Mr.  Bunau-Varilla  make 



any  secret  of  the  fact  that  in  acting  as  he  did  he 
was  influenced  both  by  his  indignation  as  a  resi- 
dent of  Panama  at  the  Colombian  treatment  of 
Panama,  and  also  by  his  indignation  as  a  French- 
man at  the  Colombian  proposal  to  blackmail  the 
company,  and  if  it  would  not  submit  to  black- 
mail, then  to  confiscate  its  possessions. 

In  view  of  this  double  attitude  of  the  Colom- 
bian Government,  an  attitude  of  tyranny  toward 
Panama  and  of  robbery  toward  the  French  com- 
pany, Mr.  Bunau-Varilla  conceived  it  to  be  his 
duty  to  do  all  he  could  to  aid  the  natives  of  Pan- 
ama in  throwing  off  the  yoke  of  Colombia.  I 
believe  his  attitude  was  entirely  proper,  alike 
from  the  standpoint  of  his  duty  as  a  resident  of 
Panama,  from  the  standpoint  of  his  duty  as  a 
Frenchman  to  the  investors  and  property  holders 
of  the  French  company,  and  from  the  standpoint 
of  his  duty  as  a  citizen  of  the  world.  But  until 
after  the  event  I  had  no  knowledge  of  his  activi- 
ties save  the  knowledge  possessed  by  all  intelli- 
gent men  who  had  studied  the  affairs  of  the  Isth- 
mus. I  gave  him  no  aid  or  encouragement.  My 
attitude  was  open  to  the  knowledge  of  all;  it  was 
set  forth  with  minute  accuracy  in  my  message  to 

No  one  connected  with  the  American  Govern- 
ment instigated  the  revolution.  I  thought  that  a 
revolution  might  very  probably  occur,  but  so  far 



from  fomenting  it  I  was  at  the  time,  as  has  re- 
peatedly been  made  public  since,  preparing  my 
message  on  the  basis  that  it  would  be  necessary 
for  us  openly  to  take  possession  of  the  Isthmus 
in  view  of  the  scandalous  conduct  of  Colombia. 
However,  the  fact  that  the  revolution  occurred 
and  that  the  independent  republic  of  Panama  was 
actually  seated  on  the  Isthmus,  rendered  it  un- 
necessary for  me  to  send  in  this  original  draft  of 
my  message. 

Even  had  I  desired  to  foment  a  revolution — 
which  I  did  not — it  would  have  been  wholly  un- 
necessary for  me  to  do  so.  The  Isthmus  was 
seething  with  revolution.  Any  interference  from 
me  would  have  had  to  take  the  shape  of  prevent- 
ing a  revolution,  not  of  creating  one.  All  the 
people  residing  on  the  Isthmus  ardently  desired 
the  revolution.  The  citizens  of  Panama  desired 
it.  Every  municipal  council,  every  governmental 
body  the  citizens  themselves  could  elect  or  con- 
trol, demanded  and  supported  it.  When  the  rev- 
olution had  occurred,  and  was  successful,  and 
Panama  was  an  independent  republic,  I  certainly 
did  prevent  Colombia  from  carrying  on  a  bloody 
war  on  the  Isthmus  in  the  effort  to  overthrow  the 
revolutionists.  I  certainly  did  refuse  to  do  what 
Colombia  requested,  that  is,  to  use  the  Army  and 
Navy  of  the  United  States  against  our  friends  in 
the  interests  of  the  foes  who  had  just  been  trying 



to  blackmail  us.  We  were  solemnly  pledged  to 
keep  transit  across  the  Isthmus  open.  Again  and 
again  we  had  landed  forces  in  time  of  revolu- 
tionary disturbance  to  secure  this  object.  If  Co- 
lombia had  attempted  the  reconquest  of  the  Isth- 
mus, there  would  have  been  a  far  more  bloody 
contest  than  ever  before  on  the  Isthmus,  and  the 
only  way  by  which  that  contest  could  have  been 
carried  on  would  have  been  by  using  the  railroad 
line  and  interrupting  transit  across  the  Isthmus. 

It  is  therefore  perfectly  true  that  I  prevented 
any  attempt  by  Colombia  to  land  troops  on  the 
Isthmus  and  plunge  the  Isthmus  into  a  long 
drawn-out  and  bloody  war.  What  I  did  then 
was  as  plainly  my  duty  as  it  would  be  the  duty  of 
the  President  to  act  in  a  similar  manner  now. 
Panama  was  an  independent  republic  de  facto 
then  just  as  she  is  now.  Colombia  had  not  a 
particle  more  right  to  land  troops  and  conquer 
her  then  than  she  has  now.  If  I  was  wrong  in 
preventing  Colombia  from  making  an  effort  by 
a  long  drawn-out  and  bloody  war  to  reconquer 
the  Isthmus  in  1903,  then  it  would  be  a  wrong 
to  prevent  her  from  making  a  similar  effort  at 
reconquest  now. 

If  Mr.  Wilson  is  sincere  in  his  criticism  of  me 
for  preventing  such  a  war  of  reconquest  in  1903, 
it  is  his  duty  to  permit  Colombia  unhampered 
to  make  the  reconquest  at  this  moment;  and 



to  advocate  one  course  of  action  is  not  one  whit 
more  immoral  than  to  advocate  the  other. 
This  Administration  pretends  to  be  for  "peace." 
My  course  has  brought  twelve  years  of  abso- 
lute peace  to  the  Isthmus,  for  the  first  time 
in  its  history,  and  any  other  course  would  have 
plunged  it  into  bloodshed.  The  Administration 
stands  for  a  make-believe  peace  of  cowardice.  I 
stand  for  what  I  then  secured :  the  real  and  last- 
ing peace  of  honor  and  justice. 

Among  the  provisions  in  the  present  proposed 
treaty  with  Colombia  is  the  following  phrase : 

The  Republic  of  Colombia  shall  be  at  lib- 
erty at  all  times  to  transport  through  the 
interoceanic  canal  its  troops,  materials  of 
war,  and  ships  of  war,  even  in  case  of  war 
between  Colombia  and  another  country, 
without  paying  any  charges  to  the  United 

To  grant  such  a  right  to  both  Colombia  and 
Panama  was  permissible  so  long  as  we  also  in- 
sisted on  exercising  it  ourselves,  on  the  grounds 
set  forth  by  the  then  Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Root, 
in  his  note  to  the  British  Government  of  January 
1 6,  1909.  In  this  note  Secretary  Root  took  the 
ground  that  the  United  States  had  the  right  to 
except  from  "coming  within  any  schedule  of  tolls 
which  might  thereafter  be  established"  the  ships 



of  the  powers  entering  into  the  agreement  neces- 
sary in  order  to  give  title  to  the  land  through 
which  the  canal  was  to  be  built,  and  to  authorize 
its  construction  and  the  necessary  jurisdiction  or 
control  over  it  when  built.  These  nations  were 
Panama,  Colombia  and  the  United  States.  Since 
then  the  present  Administration  has  surrendered 
the  right  so  far  as  the  United  States  is  concerned ; 
and  yet  it  proposes  to  give  to  the  most  enven- 
omed opponent  of  the  building  of  the  canal  rights 
to  its  use  which  are  denied  to  the  power  giving 
the  rights.  In  other  words,  the  Administration 
says  that  our  people,  who  built  the  canal,  can  give 
to  others  rights  which  they  dare  not  themselves 
exercise.  Such  a  position  is  a  wicked  absurdity. 
Moreover,  the  proposed  treaty  may  be  con- 
strued under  certain  conditions  to  give  Colombia 
the  right  to  use  the  canal  in  a  war  against  Pan- 
ama, and  we  could  only  prevent  such  an  outrage 
by  breaking  faith.  We  have  already  guaranteed 
the  independence  of  Panama  against  Colombia 
by  a  solemn  treaty.  The  Administration  now 
proposes  to  guarantee  to  Colombia  the  right  to 
use  the  canal  against  Panama.  The  two  con- 
flicting guarantees  could  not  both  be  observed. 
Doubtless  in  the  event  of  such  conflict  the  United 
States  would  refuse  to  allow  Colombia  the  rights 
which  the  proposed  treaty  would  grant  her;  and 
in  that  case  another  and  far  greater  grievance 



would  be  committed  against  Colombia;  and  then 
some  future  Administration,  if  it  possessed  the 
present  Administration's  nervous  amiability  to- 
ward all  nations  hostile  to  America,  might  agree 
to  pay  a  hundred  millions,  with  a  suitable  apol- 
ogy, as  atonement  for  the  conduct  of  its  prede- 

It  may  seem  as  if  I  am  discussing  the  future 
possible  actions  of  American  Administrations 
ironically.  I  am  really  discussing  them  quite  seri- 
ously. If  the  proposed  treaty  is  ratified,  it  will 
render  it  quite  impossible  to  consider  any  treaty 
as  beyond  the  realm  of  probability.  It  had  never 
entered  my  head  that  President  Wilson  could  do 
what  he  proposes  to  do  in  connection  with  the 
proposed  treaty  with  Colombia.  If  we  pay 
$25,000,000  to  Colombia  now,  then  there  is  no 
reason  why  we  should  not  at  some  future  time 
pay  her  another  $100,000,000;  or  pay  Mexico  ten 
times  that  sum  for  having  taken  Texas  and  Cali- 
fornia, Arizona  and  New  Mexico ;  or  pay  a  hun- 
dred times  that  sum  to  Great  Britain  because  our 
ancestors  deprived  her  of  the  thirteen  colonies. 

The  Administration  has  succeeded  in  getting 
Congress  to  take  the  position  that  the  United 
States  has  no  special  rights  in  its  own  canal.  It 
now  proposes  by  treaty  to  get  Congress  to  give 
to  the  one  nation  which  conspicuously  wronged 
us  in  connection  with  that  canal  special  rights 



which  it  would  deny  to  ourselves  and  to  all  other 
countries.  President  Wilson  denies  that  we  have 
the  right  to  exempt  our  own  vessels  engaged  in 
peaceful  coast  commerce  from  tolls,  and  yet  he 
now  proposes  to  exempt  from  tolls  the  war  ves- 
sels and  transports  of  Colombia.  Three  years 
ago  I  should  have  deemed  it  impossible  that  two 
such  propositions  could  have  been  entertained  by 
the  same  Administration.  Furthermore,  the 
President,  through  the  Secretary  of  State,  has  re- 
cently stated  that  "if  cordial  relations  are  to  be 
restored  to  Colombia,  they  must  be  restored  on  a 
basis  that  is  satisfactory  to  Colombia."  On  the 
contrary,  I  take  the  position  that  the  basis  should 
be  one  of  justice  and  right,  and  therefore  one  sat- 
isfactory to  the  honor  and  dignity  of  the  United 
States  Government  and  of  the  American  people. 
The  Administration's  attitude  is  precisely  as  if 
when  a  householder  has  a  disagreement  with  a 
burglar  the  effort  should  be  to  restore  "peace" 
upon  a  basis  satisfactory  to  the  burglar  instead 
of  to  the  householder.  Any  burglar  will  wel- 
come the  "peace"  which  comes  if  the  householder 
tenders  him  a  large  sum  of  money  to  atone  for 
the  heartlessness  of  a  former  occupant  of  the 
house  in  preventing  him  from  getting  away  with 
the  loose  silver. 

Mr.  Bryan  has  also  stated  that  Colombia  suf- 
fered a  loss  financially,  which  we  ought  to  make 



up,  when  she  lost  Panama.  This  represents  the 
doctrine  that  when  one  country  holds  another  in 
subjection  and  by  misgovernment  drives  it  to  re- 
volt, the  moral  and  equitable  rights  are  on  the 
side  of  the  tyrant  country  and  not  on  the  country 
that  has  declared  its  independence.  If  Mr.  Bryan 
is  right  in  his  theory,  France  owes  Great  Britain 
an  enormous  sum  of  money  for  its  misconduct  in 
assisting  the  revolted  colonies  to  become  the 
United  States  of  America.  Yet  the  misgovern- 
ment of  the  colonies  by  Great  Britain  against 
which  the  colonies  revolted  did  not  even  remotely 
approach  the  misgovernment  against  which  Pan- 
ama revolted;  and  it  would  not  be  more  absurd 
for  President  Wilson  to  take  the  position  that 
France  owes  Great  Britain  an  enormous  sum  of 
money  for  her  conduct  in  the  Revolutionary  War 
than  to  take  the  position  which  is  now  taken  in 
reference  to  the  payment  of  this  $25,000,000  of 
sheer  blackmail  to  Colombia. 

We  have  at  different  times  paid  sums  of  money 
to  various  nations  for  the  acquisition  of  territory 
from  them.  We  have  paid  money  to  Russia  and 
to  France.  We  have  paid  money  to  Spain.  But 
we  have  never  paid  to  any  nation,  not  to  the  most 
powerful  European  nation,  nor  to  any  American 
nation,  a  sum  of  money  equal  to  the  sum  which 
it  is  now  proposed  to  pay  to  Colombia  in  tender- 
ing her  an  apology  for  having  refused  to  permit 



her  to  reconquer  a  little  people  whom  she  had 
shamelessly  oppressed,  and  for  having  acquired 
the  right  which  she  sought  to  deny  us,  the  right 
to  spend  hundreds  of  millions  of  our  own  money 
in  constructing  a  canal  in  our  own  interest,  in 
her  interest,  and  in  the  interest  of  all  the  civi- 
lized powers  of  the  world. 

As  Mr.  Bonaparte,  late  Attorney-General,  has 

By  the  treaty  we  promise  to  pay  Colom- 
bia, as  a  compensation  for  an  alleged  injury, 
a  much  larger  sum  of  money  than  we  paid 
France  for  Louisiana,  or  Mexico  for  Cali- 
fornia, or  Spain  for  the  Philippines,  or 
Panama  for  the  Canal  Zone,  or  than  Great 
Britain  paid  us  in  settlement  of  the  Alabama 
claims;  if  we  acknowledge  that  we  have  so 
wronged  her  as  as  to  make  it  proper  for  us 
to  buy  her  forgiveness,  it  is  consistent  and 
appropriate  to  add  to  this  acknowledgment 
of  wrong  an  apology,  or,  in  other  words, 
an  expression  of  sorrow ;  if  we  have  nothing 
to  apologize  for,  because  we  have  done  her 
no  wrong,  then  it  is  utterly  unworthy  of  a 
great  nation  and  a  forfeiture  of  our  right 
to  self-respect  for  us  to  pay  her  a  red  cent. 

The  proposed  treaty  is  a  crime  against  the 
United  States.  It  is  an  attack  upon  the  honor 
of  the  United  States  which  if  justified  would  con- 
vict the  United  States  of  infamy.  It  is  a  menace 



to  the  future  well-being  of  our  people.  Either 
there  is  or  there  is  not  warrant  for  paying  this 
enormous  sum  and  for  making  the  apology.  If 
there  is  no  warrant  for  it — and  of  course  not  the 
slightest  vestige  of  warrant  exists — then  the  pay- 
ment is  simply  the  payment  of  belated  blackmail. 
If  there  is  warrant  for  it,  then  we  have  no  busi- 
ness to  be  on  the  Isthmus  at  all.  The  payment 
can  only  be  justified  upon  the  ground  that  this 
nation  has  played  the  part  of  a  thief,  or  of  a  re- 
ceiver of  stolen  goods.  In  such  a  case  it  would 
be  a  crime  to  remain  on  the  Isthmus,  and  it  is 
much  worse  than  an  absurdity  for  the  President, 
who  wishes  to  pay  the  $25,000,000,  to  take  part 
in  opening  the  canal ;  for  if  the  President  and  the 
Secretary  of  State  are  justified  in  paying  the 
$25,000,000,  it  is  proof  positive  that  in  opening 
the  canal  they  are  in  their  own  opinion  engaged 
in  the  dedication  of  stolen  goods. 

To  recapitulate: 

i.  The  land  could  not  have  been  acquired  and 
the  canal  could  not  have  been  built  save  by  tak- 
ing precisely  and  exactly  the  action  which  was 
taken.  Unless  the  nation  is  prepared  heartily  to 
indorse  and  stand  by  this  action,  it  has  no  right 
to  take  any  pride  in  anything  that  has  been  done 
on  the  Isthmus  and  it  has  no  right  to  remain  on 
the  Isthmus.  If  there  is  a  moral  justification  for 
paying  Colombia  $25,000,000,  then  there  is  no 


moral  justification  for  our  staying  on  the  Isth- 
mus at  all  and  we  should  promptly  get  off.  If 
President  Wilson  is  right  in  his  position,  then  he 
has  no  business  to  take  part  in  any  ceremony 
connected  with  opening  the  canal;  on  his  theory 
he  would  be  engaged  in  the  dedication  of  stolen 

2.  In  the  words  of  John  Hay,  "the  covenant 
ran  with  the  land."  Our  agreement  was  with  the 
power  which  owned  the  Isthmus  of  Panama, 
whether  this  was  New  Granada  or  Colombia  or 
Panama  itself.  This  agreement  guaranteed  the 
state  that  was  in  control  of  the  Isthmus  against 
interference  by  foreign  powers,  but  it  imposed 
no  responsibility  upon  us  as  regards  internecine 
troubles.  This  was  explicitly  set  forth  in  state- 
ments by  Secretaries  Cass  and  Seward,  one  a 
Democrat  and  one  a  Republican. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  every  action  we  took  was 
not  only  open  and  straightforward,  but  was  ren- 
dered absolutely  necessary  by  the  misconduct  of 
Colombia..  Every  action  we  took  was  in  accord- 
ance with  the  highest  principles  of  national,  in- 
ternational, and  private  morality.  The  honor 
of  the  United  States,  and  the  interest  not  only  of 
the  United  States  but  of  the  world,  demanded 
the  building  of  the  canal.  The  canal  could  not 
have  been  built,  it  would  not  now  have  been  be- 
gun, had  our  Government  not  acted  precisely  as 


it  did  act  in  1903.  No  action  ever  taken  by  the 
Government,  in  dealing  with  any  foreign  power 
since  the  days  of  the  Revolution,  was  more  vi- 
tally necessary  to  the  well-being  of  our  people, 
and  no  action  we  ever  took  was  taken  with  a 
higher  regard  for  the  standards  of  honor,  of 
courage,  and  of  efficiency  which  should  distin- 
guish the  attitude  of  the  United  States  in  all  its 
dealings  with  the  rest  of  the  world. 




FEAR  God  and  take  your  own  part !  This  is 
another  way  of  saying  that  a  nation  must 
have  power  and  will  for  self-sacrifice  and  also 
power  and  will  for  self -protection.  There  must 
be  both  unselfishness  and  self-expression,  each  to 
supplement  the  other,  neither  wholly  good  with- 
out the  other.  The  nation  must  be  willing  to 
stand  disinterestedly  for  a  lofty,  ideal  and  yet  it 
must  also  be  able  to  insist  that  its  own  rights  be 
heeded  by  others.  Evil  will  come  if  it  does  not 
possess  the  will  and  the  power  for  unselfish  action 
on  behalf  of  non-utilitarian  ideals  and  also  the 
will  and  the  power  for  self-mastery,  self-control, 
self-discipline.  It  must  possess  those  high  and 
stern  qualities  of  soul  which  will  enable  it  to 
conquer  softness  and  weakness  and  timidity  and 
train  itself  to  subordinate  momentary  pleasure, 
momentary  profit,  momentary  safety  to  the  larger 

There  is  not  the  slightest  use  of  saying  any  of 
this  unless  we  are  willing  and  able  to  translate 
our  speech  into  action.  National  unselfishness 



and  self-sacrifice  must  be  an  affair  of  deeds.  To 
utter  lofty  sentiments  on  the  subject,  to  indulge 
in  oratory  about  it,  to  write  notes  about  it,  and 
then  when  the  occasion  arises  not  to  act  in  ac- 
cordance with  these  sentiments,  means  moral 
degradation  for  the  nation.  Oratorical  insincer- 
ity of  this  kind  is  nauseating  to  all  honest  men. 
Prolonged  indulgence  in  this  kind  of  emotional 
insincerity  eats  into  the  moral  fiber  of  the  people 
like  a  corrosive  acid. 

In  the  spring  of  1910  at  Christiania  before  the 
Nobel  Prize  Committee,  in  acknowledging  the 
receipt  of  the  Nobel  Peace  Prize,  I  outlined  the 
plan  for  securing  international  peace  by  means  of 
an  international  league  pledged  to  put  force  back 
of  it,  the  plan  which  I  elaborated  in  the  volume 
published  over  a  year  ago  called  "America  and 
the  World  War."  But  it  is  a  sham  and  a  mock- 
ery to  advocate  such  a  plan  until  and  unless  we 
in  the  first  place  make  it  evident  that  when  we 
give  a  promise  we  mean  to  keep  it,  and  in  the 
next  place  make  it  evident  that  we  are  willing  to 
show  the  courage,  the  resolution,  the  forethought 
in  training  and  preparation  that  will  enable  us  to 
put  strength  behind  our  promise.  I  believe  in 
nationalism  as  the  absolute  pre-requisite  to  inter- 
nationalism. I  believe  in  patriotism  as  the  abso- 
lute pre-requisite  to  the  larger  Americanism.  I 
believe  in  Americanism  because  unless  our  people 



are  good  Americans  first,  America  can  accom- 
plish little  or  nothing  worth  accomplishing  for 
the  good  of  the  world  as  a  whole. 

But  none  of  these  objects  can  be  attained  by 
merely  talking  about  them.  National  unselfish- 
ness and  self-sacrifice,  national  self-mastery,  and 
the  development  of  national  power,  can  never  be 
achieved  by  words  alone.  National  unselfishness 
— which  is  another  way  of  saying  service  ren- 
dered to  internationalism — can  become  effective 
only  if  the  nation  is  willing  to  sacrifice  some- 
thing, is  willing  to  face  risk  and  effort  and  endure 
hardship  in  order  to  render  service.  The  tower- 
ing idealism  of  Lincoln's  Gettysburg  speech  and 
second  inaugural  counted  only  because  it  repre- 
sented the  labor  and  effort  and  willingness  to 
face  death  and  eager  pride  in  fighting  for  ideals, 
which  marked  a  mighty  people  led  by  a  mighty 

We  of  America,  thanks  to  the  failure  of  Presi- 
dent Wilson's  Administration  to  do  its  duty, 
have  ourselves  failed  to  serve  the  cause  of  inter- 
nationalism as  it  was  our  bounden  duty  to  serve 
it  by  standing  efficiently  for  heroic  Belgium 
when,  under  the  lead  of  their  heroic  King  and 
Queen,  the  Belgian  people  chose  to  tread  the  hard 
path  of  national  suffering  and  honor  rather  than 
the  easy  path  which  led  through  fields  of  safety 
and  disgrace.  The  Belgians  have  walked  through 



the  valley  of  the  shadow  rather  than  prove  false 
to  their  ideals.  We,  rich,  prosperous,  at  ease, 
and  potentially  powerful,  have  not  lifted  a  finger 
to  right  their  wrongs,  lest  our  own  safety  and 
comfort  might  be  jeopardized.  This  represents 
on  our  part  neither  readiness  for  national  self- 
sacrifice,  nor  appreciation  of  true  international- 
ism. It  represents  the  gross  selfishness  which 
puts  material  well-being  above  fealty  to  a  high 

This  national  selfishness,  manifested  under  the 
lead  of  President  Wilson  and  Secretary  Bryan, 
was  doubly  offensive  because  it  was  loudly  trum- 
peted as  a  virtue.  One  of  our  besetting  sins  as  a 
nation  has  been  to  encourage  in  our  public  serv- 
ants, in  our  speech-making  leaders  of  all  kinds, 
the  preaching  of  impossible  ideals;  and  then  to 
treat  this  as  offsetting  the  fact  that  in  practice 
these  representatives  did  not  live  up  to  any  ideals 
whatever.  The  vital  need  is  that  we  as  a  nation 
shall  say  what  we  mean  and  shall  make  our  public 
servants  say  what  they  mean ;  say  it  to  other  na- 
tions and  say  it  to  us,  ourselves.  Let  us  demand 
that  we  and  they  preach  realizable  ideals  and  that 
we  and  they  live  up  to  the  ideals  thus  preached. 
Let  there  be  no  impassable  gulf  between  exuber- 
ance of  impossible  promise  and  pitiful  insuffi- 
ciency in  quality  of  possible  performance. 

Belgium  is  the  test  of  just  how  much  our  pub- 


lie  servants  and  our  professional  humanitarians 
mean  when  they  speak  in  favor  of  high  ideals 
and  lofty  international  morality.  If  we  clamor 
for  peace  without  saying  that  Belgium's  wrongs 
are  to  be  righted  before  peace  can  properly  come, 
we  are  false  to  every  true  standard  of  interna- 
tional morality.  If  we  are  not  willing  to  encoun- 
ter hazard  and  the  risk  of  loss  and  the  need  of 
effort  in  order  to  help  Belgium,  then  we  show 
ourselves  unfit  to  talk  about  internationalism. 

But  this  is  not  all.  It  is  odious  hypocrisy  to 
do  as  this  Administration  has  done  and  refuse  to 
stand  for  the  rights  of  neutrals  when,  as  in  the 
case  of  Belgium,  these  rights  were  most  fla- 
grantly trodden  under  foot,  but  when  we  had  no 
pecuniary  interest  involved ;  and  yet  promptly  to 
clamor  on  behalf  of  the  rights  of  neutrals  when 
the  exercise  of  these  rights  would  redound  to  our 
own  pecuniary  advantage.  This  is  to  put  the 
body  above  the  soul,  the  dollar  above  the  man. 
Moreover,  when  we  thus,  in  the  first  and  greatest 
case  of  the  violation  of  neutral  rights,  flinched 
from  our  duty,  we  rendered  it  impossible  with 
effect  or  indeed  with  propriety  to  protest  about 
subsequent  and  lesser  violations  of  neutral  rights. 
With  colossal  effrontery  Germany,  the  first  and 
infinitely  the  greatest  offender  against  humanity 
and  the  rights  of  neutrals,  has  clamored  that 
we  should  take  steps  to  "secure  neutral  rights  on 



the  seas,"  to  "establish  the  freedom  of  the  seas," 
"to  secure  the  neutralization  of  the  ocean."  The 
pro-Germans  on  this  side  of  the  water  have  re- 
peated these  words  with  parrot-like  fidelity  of 
phrase.  In  the  first  place,  all  offences  against 
the  freedom  of  the  seas  that  have  been  perpe- 
trated in  this  war  are  unimportant  compared 
with  the  infamy  committed  on  Belgium — save 
only  those  offences  committed  by  the  German  and 
Austrian  submarines,  which  resulted  in  the  mur- 
der of  over  two  thousand  non-combatants.  In 
the  next  place,  until  the  civilized  world  which  is 
at  peace,  and  more  especially  the  United  States, 
in  some  way  takes  effective  action  to  rebuke  the 
violation  by  Germany  of  the  neutralized  territory 
of  Belgium,  it  is  utterly  useless  to  talk  about  the 
neutralization  of  the  seas.  If  the  United  States 
had  promptly  and  effectively  interfered  on  behalf 
of  Belgium,  it  would  have  been  its  clear  duty  to 
interfere  against  all  the  nations  who  on  sea  or  on 
shore  have  subsequently  been  guilty  of  violations 
of  international  law  and  of  the  rules  laid  down  in 
The  Hague  Conventions,  the  Geneva  Convention 
and  other  similar  conventions.  But  until  the  first 
duty  has  been  efficiently  performed  and  the  major 
offender  dealt  with,  it  is  a  proof  of  cowardice 
and  of  bad  faith  to  deal  with  minor  offences. 

Let  us  be  true  to  our  democratic  ideal,  not  by 
the  utterance  of  cheap  platitudes,  not  by  windy 



oratory,  but  by  living  our  lives  in  such  manner 
as  to  show  that  democracy  can  be  efficient  in 
promoting  the  public  welfare  during  periods  of 
peace  and  efficient  in  securing  national  freedom 
in  time  of  war.  If  a  free  government  cannot  or- 
ganize and  maintain  armies  and  navies  which 
can  and  will  fight  as  well  as  those  of  an  autocracy 
or  a  despotism,  it  will  not  survive.  We  must  have 
a  first-class  navy  and  a  first-class  professional 
army.  We  must  also  secure  universal  and  obliga- 
tory military  training  for  all  our  young  men. 
Our  democracy  must  prove  itself  effective  in 
making  the  people  healthy,  strong  and  industri- 
ally productive,  in  securing  justice,  in  inspiring 
intense  patriotism  and  in  making  every  man  and 
woman  within  our  borders  realize  that  if  they  are 
not  willing  at  time  of  need  to  serve  the  nation 
against  all  comers  in  war,  they  are  not  fit  to  be 
citizens  of  the  nation  in  time  of  peace.  The 
democratic  ideal  must  be  that  of  subordinating 
chaos  to  order,  of  subordinating  the  individual  to 
the  community,  of  subordinating  individual  self- 
ishness to  collective  self-sacrifice  for  a  lofty  ideal, 
of  training  every  man  to  realize  that  no  one  is 
entitled  to  citizenship  in  a  great  free  common- 
wealth unless  he  does  his  full  duty  to  his  neigh- 
bor, his  full  duty  in  his  family  life,  and  his  full 
duty  to  the  nation ;  and  unless  he  is  prepared  to 
do  this  duty  not  only  in  time  of  peace  but  also  in 



time  of  war.  It  is  by  no  means  necessary  that  a 
great  nation  should  always  stand  at  the  heroic 
level.  But  no  nation  has  the  root  of  greatness 
in  it  unless  in  time  of  need  it  can  rise  to  the  heroic 


.     APPENDIX  A 


On  the  ninth  of  May,  1915,  two  days  after  the 
Lusitania  was  torpedoed  without  warning  by  a  Ger- 
man submarine,  I  made  the  following  statement  in 
the  press: — 

THE  German  submarines  have  established  no  ef- 
fective blockade  of  the  British  and  French  coast 
lines.  They  have  endeavored  to  prevent  the  access  of 
French,  British  and  neutral  ships  to  Britain  and  France 
by  attacks  upon  them  which  defy  every  principle  of  in- 
ternational law  as  laid  down  in  innumerable  existing 
treaties,  including  The  Hague  Conventions.  Many  of 
these  attacks  have  represented  pure  piracy;  and  not 
a  few  of  them  have  been  accompanied  by  murder  on 
an  extended  scale.  In  the  case  of  the  Lusitania  the  scale 
was  so  vast  that  the  murder  became  wholesale. 

A  number  of  American  ships  had  already  been  tor- 
pedoed in  similar  fashion.  In  two  cases  American  lives 
were  lost.  When  the  Lusitania  sank  some  twelve  hun- 
dred non-combatants,  men,  women  and  children,  were 
drowned,  and  more  than  a  hundred  of  these  were  Ameri- 
cans. Centuries  have  passed  since  any  war  vessel  of 
a  civilized  power  has  shown  such  ruthless  brutality 
toward  non-combatants,  and  especially  toward  women 
and  children.  The  Moslem  pirates  of  the  Barbary  Coast 
behaved  at  times  in  similar  fashion,  until  the  civilized 



nations  joined  in  suppressing  them ;  and  the  other  pirates 
who  were  outcasts  from  among  these  civilized  nations 
also  at  one  time  perpetrated  similar  deeds,  until  they 
were  sunk  or  hung.  But  none  of  these  old-time  pirates 
committed  murder  on  so  vast  a  scale  as  in  the  case  of  the 

The  day  after  the  tragedy  the  newspapers  reported 
in  one  column  that  in  Queenstown  there  lay  by  the  score 
the  bodies  of  women  and  children,  some  of  the  dead 
women  still  clasping  the  bodies  of  the  little  children 
they  held  in  their  arms  when  death  overwhelmed  them. 
In  another  column  they  reported  the  glee  expressed 
by  the  Berlin  journals  at  this  "great  victory  of  German 
naval  policy."  It  was  a  victory  over  the  defenceless 
and  the  unoffending,  and  its  signs  and  trophies  were 
the  bodies  of  the  murdered  women  and  children. 

Our  treaties  with  Prussia  in  1785,  1799,  and  1828, 
still  in  force  in  this  regard,  provide  that  if  one  of  the 
contracting  parties  should  be  at  war  with  any  other 
power  the  free  intercourse  and  commerce  of  the  subjects 
or  citizens  of  the  party  remaining  neutral  with  the  bel- 
ligerent powers  shall  not  be  interrupted.  Germany 
has  treated  this  treaty  as  she  has1  treated  other  scraps 
of  paper. 

But  the  offence  goes  far  deeper  than  this.  The  action 
of  the  German  submarines  in  the  cases  cited  can  be 
justified  only  by  a  plea  which  would  likewise  justify 
the  wholesale  poisoning  of  wells  in  the  path  of  a  hostile 
army,  or  the  shipping  of  infected  rags  into  the  cities 
of  a  hostile  country;  a  plea  which  would  justify  the 
torture  of  prisoners  and  the  reduction  of  captured  women 
to  the  slavery  of  concubinage.  Those  who  advance  such 
a  plea  will  accept  but  one  counter  plea — strength,  the 
strength  and  courage  of  the  just  man  armed. 



When  those  who  guide  the  military  policy  of  a  state 
hold  up  to  the  soldiers  of  their  army  the  Huns,  and 
the  terror  once  caused  by  the  Huns,  for  their  imitation, 
they  thereby  render  themselves  responsible  for  any  Hun- 
nish  deed  which  may  follow.  The  destruction  of  cities 
like  Louvain  and  Dinant,  the  scientific  vivisection  of 
Belgium  as  a  warning  to  other  nations,  the  hideous 
wrongdoing  to  civilians,  men,  women  and  children  in 
Belgium  and  northern  France,  in  order  thereby  to  ter- 
rorize the  civilian  population — all  these  deeds,  and  those 
like  them,  done  on  the  land,  have  now  been  paralleled 
by  what  has  happened  on  the  sea. 

In  the  teeth  of  these  things,  we  earn  as  a  nation  meas- 
ureless scorn  and  contempt  if  we  follow  the  lead  of 
those  who  exalt  peace  above  righteousness,  if  we  heed 
the  voices  of  those  feeble  folk  who  bleat  to  high  heaven 
that  there  is  peace  when  there  is  no  peace.  For  many 
months  our  government  has  preserved  between  right  and 
wrong  a  neutrality  which  would  have  excited  the  emu- 
lous admiration  of  Pontius  Pilate — the  arch-typical  neu- 
tral of  all  time.  We  have  urged  as  a  justification  for 
failing  to  do  our  duty  in  Mexico  that  to  do  so  would 
benefit  American  dollars.  Are  we  now  to  change 
faces  and  advance  the  supreme  interest  of  American 
dollars  as  a  justification  for  continuance  in  the  re- 
fusal to  do  the  duty  imposed  on  us  in  connection  with 
the  world  war? 

Unless  we  act  with  immediate  decision  and  vigor 
we  shall  have  failed  in  the  duty  demanded  by  humanity 
at  large,  and  demanded  even  more  clearly  by  the  self- 
respect  of  the  American  Republic." 

We  did  not  act  with  immediate  decision  and  vigor. 
We  did  not  act  at  all.  The  President  immediately  after 
the  sinking  made  a  speech  in  which  occurred  his  sen- 



tence  about  our  "being  too  proud  to  fight."  This  was 
accepted,  very  properly,  by  foreign  nations  as  the  state- 
ment of  our  official  head  that  we  ranked  in  point  of  na- 
tional spirit  and  power  with  China.  I  then  published  the 
following  interview : 

"I  think  that  China  is  entitled  to  draw  all  the 
comfort  she  can  from  this  statement,  and  it  would 
be  well  for  the  United  States  to  ponder  seriously 
what  the  effect  upon  China  has  been  of  managing 
her  foreign  affairs  during  the  last  fifteen  years  on 
the  theory  thus  enunciated. 

"If  the  United  States  is  satisfied  with  occupying 
some  time  in  the  future  the  precise  international 
position  that  China  now  occupies,  then  the  United 
States  can  afford  to  act  on  this  theory.  But  it 
cannot  so  act  if  it  desires  to  regain  the  position 
won  for  it  under  Washington  and  by  the  men 
who  in  the  days  of  Abraham  Lincoln  wore  the  blue 
under  Grant  and  the  gray  under  Lee. 

"I  very  earnestly  hope  that  the  President  will  act 
promptly.  The  proper  time  for  deliberation  was 
prior  to  sending  his  message  that  our  Government 
would  hold  Germany  to  a  'strict  accountability' 
if  it  did  the  things  which  it  has  now  actually 

"The  150  babies  drowned  on  the  Liisitania,  the 
hundreds  of  women  drowned  with  them — scores 
of  these  women  and  children  being  Americans — 
and  the  American  ship,  the  Gulflight,  which  was 
torpedoed,  offer  an  eloquent  commentary  on  the 
actual  working  of  the  theory  that  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  assert  rights  and  that  a  policy  of  blood 


and  iron  can  safely  be  met  by  a  policy  of  milk  and 

"I  see  it  stated  in  the  dispatches  from  Washing- 
ton that  Germany  now  offers  to  stop  the  practice 
of  murder  on  the  high  seas,  committed  in  viola- 
tion of  the  neutral  rights  she  is  pledged  to  pre- 
serve, if  we  will  now  abandon  further  neutral  rights, 
which  by  her  treaty  she  has  solemnly  pledged  herself 
to  see  that  we  exercise  without  molestation. 

"Such  a  proposal  is  not  even  entitled  to  an  answer. 
The  manufacture  and  shipments  of  arms  and  am- 
munition to  any  belligerent  is  moral  or  immoral, 
according  to  the  use  to  which  the  arms  and  muni- 
tions are  to  be  put.  If  they  are  to  be  used  to 
prevent  the  redress  of  hideous  wrongs  inflicted  on 
Belgium  then  it  is  immoral  to  ship  them.  If  they 
are  to  be  used  for  the  redress  of  those  wrongs  and 
the  restoration  of  Belgium  to  her  deeply-wronged 
and  unoffending  people,  then  it  is  eminently  moral 
to  send  them. 

"Without  24  hours'  delay  this  country  should  and 
could  take  effective  action.  It  should  take  possession 
of  all  the  interned  German  ships,  including  the  Ger- 
man warships,  and  hold  them  as  a  guarantee  that 
ample  satisfaction  shall  be  given  us.  Furthermore 
it  should  declare  that  in  view  of  Germany's  mur- 
derous offences  against  the  rights  of  neutrals  all 
commerce  with  Germany  shall  be  forthwith  forbid- 
den and  all  commerce  of  every  kind  permitted  and 
encouraged  with  France,  England,  Russia,  and  the 
rest  of  the  civilized  world. 

"I  do  not  believe  that  the  firm  assertion  of  our 
rights  means  war,  but,  in  any  event,  it  is  well  to 
remember  there  are  things  worse  than  war. 



"Let  us  as  a  nation  understand  that  peace  is  worth 
having  only  when  it  is  the  hand-maiden  of  inter- 
national righteousness  and  of  national  self-respect." 




'Address  delivered  before  the  Knights  of  Columbus,  Car- 
negie Hall,  New  York,  Oct.  12,  1915 

FOUR  centuries  and  a  quarter  have  gone  by  since 
Columbus  by  discovering  America  opened  the  great- 
est era  in  world  history.  Four  centuries  have  passed  since 
the  Spaniards  began  that  colonization  on  the  main  land 
which  has  resulted  in  the  growth  of  the  nations  of  Latin- 
America.  Three  centuries  have  passed  since,  with  the 
settlements  on  the  coasts  of  Virginia  and  Massachusetts, 
the  real  history  of  what  is  now  the  United  States  began. 
All  this  we  ultimately  owe  to  the  action  of  an  Italian  sea- 
man in  the  service  of  a  Spanish  King  and  a  Spanish 
Queen.  It  is  eminently  fitting  that  one  of  the  largest  and 
most  influential  social  organizations  of  this  great  Repub- 
lic,— a  Republic  in  which  the  tongue  is  English,  and  the 
blood  derived  from  many  sources — should,  in  its  name, 
commemorate  the  great  Italian.  It  is  eminently  fitting  to 
make  an  address  on  Americanism  before  this  society. 

We  of  the  United  States  need  above  all  things  to  re- 
member that,  while  we  are  by  blood  and  culture  kin  to 
each  of  the  nations  of  Europe,  we  are  also  separate  from 
each  of  them.  We  are  a  new  and  distinct  nationality. 
We  are  developing  our  own  distinctive  culture  and  civili- 
zation, and  the  worth  of  this  civilization  will  largely  de- 
pend upon  our  determination  to  keep  it  distinctively  our 



own.  Our  sons  and  daughters  should  be  educated  here 
and  not  abroad.  We  should  freely  take  from  every  other 
nation  whatever  we  can  make  of  use,  but  we  should  adopt 
and  develop  to  our  own  peculiar  needs  what  we  thus  take, 
and  never  be  content  merely  to  copy. 

Our  nation  was  founded  to  perpetuate  democratic  prin- 
ciples. These  principles  are  that  each  man  is  to  be  treated 
on  his  worth  as  a  man  without  regard  to  the  land  from 
which  his  forefathers  came  and  without  regard  to  the 
creed  which  he  professes.  If  the  United  States  proves 
false  to  these  principles  of  civil  and  religious  liberty,  it 
will  have  inflicted  the  greatest  blow  on  the  system  of  free 
popular  government  that  has  ever  been  inflicted.  Here 
we  have  had  a  virgin  continent  on  which  to  try  the  experi- 
ment of  making  out  of  divers  race  stocks  a  new  nation 
and  of  treating  all  the  citizens  of  that  nation  in  such  a 
fashion  as  to  preserve  them  equality  of  opportunity  in 
industrial,  civil  and  political  life.  Our  duty  is  to  secure 
each  man  against  any  injustice  by  his  fellows. 

One  of  the  most  important  things  to  secure  for  him  is 
the  right  to  hold  and  to  express  the  religious  views  that 
best  meet  his  own  soul  needs.  Any  political  movement 
directed  against  any  body  of  our  fellow  citizens  because 
of  their  religious  creed  is  a  grave  offense  against  Amer- 
ican principles  and  American  institutions.  It  is  a  wicked 
thing  either  to  support  or  to  oppose  a  man  because  of  the 
creed  he  professes.  This  applies  to  Jew  and  Gentile,  to 
Catholic  and  Protestant,  and  to  the  man  who  would  be 
regarded  as  unorthodox  by  all  of  them  alike.  Political 
movements  directed  against  certain  men  because  of  their 
religious  belief,  and  intended  to  prevent  men  of  that  creed 
from  holding  office,  have  never  accomplished  anything  but 
harm.  This  was  true  in  the  days  of  the  "Know-Nothing" 
and  Native-American  parties  in  the  middle  of  the  last 


century;  and  it  is  just  as  true  to-day.  Such  a  movement 
directly  contravenes  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution  itself. 
Washington  and  his  associates  believed  that  it  was  essen- 
tial to  the  existence  of  this  Republic  that  there  should 
never  be  any  union  of  Church  and  State;  and  such  union 
is  partially  accomplished  wherever  a  given  creed  is  aided 
by  the  State  or  when  any  public  servant  is  elected  or 
defeated  because  of  his  creed.  The  Constitution  ex- 
plicitly forbids  the  requiring  of  any  religious  test  as  a 
qualification  for  holding  office.  To  impose  such  a  test 
by  popular  vote  is  as  bad  as  to  impose  it  by  law.  To  vote 
either  for  or  against  a  man  because  of  his  creed  is  to 
impose  upon  him  a  religious  test  and  is  a  clear  violation 
of  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution. 

Moreover,  it  is  well  to  remember  that  these  movements 
never  achieve  the  end  they  nominally  have  in  view.  They 
do  nothing  whatsoever  except  to  increase  among  the  men 
of  the  various  churches  the  spirit  of  sectarian  intolerance 
which  is  base  and  unlovely  in  any  civilization  but  which 
is  utterly  revolting  among  a  free  people  that  profess  the 
principles  we  profess.  No  such  movement  can  ever  per- 
manently succeed  here.  All  that  it  does  is  for  a  decade 
or  so  greatly  to  increase  the  spirit  of  theological  animos- 
ity, both  among  the  people  to  whom  it  appeals  and  among 
the  people  whom  it  assails.  Furthermore,  it  has  in  the 
past  invariably  resulted,  in  so  far  as  it  was  successful  at 
all,  in  putting  unworthy  men  into  office ;  for  there  is  noth- 
ing that  a  man  of  loose  principles  and  of  evil  practices  in 
public  life  so  desires  as  the  chance  to  distract  attention 
from  his  own  shortcomings  and  misdeeds  by  exciting  and 
inflaming  theological  and  sectarian  prejudice. 

We  must  recognize  that  it  is  a  cardinal  sin  against 
democracy  to  support  a  man  for  public  office  because  he 
belongs  to  a  given  creed  or  to  oppose  him  because  he 



belongs  to  a  given  creed.  It  is  just  as  evil  as  to  draw  the 
line  between  class  and  class,  between  occupation  and  occu- 
pation in  political  life.  No  man  who  tries  to  draw  either 
line  is  a  good  American.  True  Americanism  demands 
that  we  judge  each  man  on  his  conduct,  that  we  so  judge 
him  in  private  life  and  that  we  so  judge  him  in  public 
life.  The  line  of  cleavage  drawn  on  principle  and  con- 
duct in  public  affairs  is  never  in  any  healthy  community 
identical  with  the  line  of  cleavage  between  creed  and 
creed  or  between  class  and  class.  On  the  contrary,  where 
the  community  life  is  healthy,  these  lines  of  cleavage 
almost  always  run  nearly  at  right  angles  to  one  another. 
It  is  eminently  necessary  to  all  of  us  that  we  should  have 
able  and  honest  public  officials  in  the  nation,  in  the  city, 
in  the  state.  If  we  make  a  serious  and  resolute  effort  to 
get  such  officials  of  the  right  kind,  men  who  shall  not  only 
be  honest  but  shall  be  able  and  shall  take  the  right  view 
of  public  questions,  we  will  find  as  a  matter  of  fact  that 
the  men  we  thus  choose  will  be  drawn  from  the  professors 
of  every  creed  and  from  among  men  who  do  not  adhere 
to  any  creed. 

For  thirty-five  years  I  have  been  more  or  less  actively 
engaged  in  public  life,  in  the  performance  of  my  political 
duties,  now  in  a  public  position,  now  in  a  private  position. 
I  have  fought  with  all  the  fervor  I  possessed  for  the  vari- 
ous causes  in  which  with  all  my  heart  I  believed ;  and  in 
every  fight  I  thus  made  I  have  had  with  me  and  against 
me  Catholics,  Protestants  and  Jews.  There  have  been 
times  when  I  have  had  to  make  the  fight  for  or  against 
some  man  of  each  creed  on  grounds  of  plain  public  moral- 
ity, unconnected  with  questions  of  public  policy.  There 
were  other  times  when  I  have  made  such  a  fight  for  or 
against  a  given  man,  not  on  grounds  of  public  morality, 
for  he  may  have  been  morally  a  good  man,  but  on  account 



of  his  attitude  on  questions  of  public  policy,  of  govern- 
mental principle.  In  both  cases,  I  have  always  found 
myself  fighting  beside,  and  fighting  against,  men  of  every 
creed.  The  one  sure  way  to  have  secured  the  defeat  of 
every  good  principle  worth  fighting  for  would  have  been 
to  have  permitted  the  fight  to  be  changed  into  one  along 
sectarian  lines  and  inspired  by  the  spirit  of  sectarian  bit- 
terness, either  for  the  purpose  of  putting  into  public  life 
or  of  keeping  out  of  public  life  the  believers  in  any  given 
creed.  Such  conduct  represents  an  assault  upon  Amer- 
icanism. The  man  guilty  of  it  is  not  a  good  American. 

I  hold  that  in  this  country  there  must  be  complete  sev- 
erance of  Church  and  State;  that  public  moneys  shall 
not  be  used  for  the  purpose  of  advancing  any  particular 
creed ;  and  therefore  that  the  public  schools  shall  be  non- 
sectarian  and  no  public  moneys  appropriated  for  sec- 
tarian schools.  As  a  necessary  corollary  to  this,  not  only 
the  pupils  but  the  members  of  the  teaching  force  and  the 
school  officials  of  all  kinds  must  be  treated  exactly  on  a 
par,  no  matter  what  their  creed;  and  there  must  be  no 
more  discrimination  against  Jew  or  Catholic  or  Protestant 
than  discrimination  in  favor  of  Jew,  Catholic  or  Protest- 
ant. Whoever  makes  such  discrimination  is  an  enemy  of 
the  public  schools. 

What  is  true  of  creed  is  no  less  true  of  nationality. 
There  is  no  room  in  this  country  for  hyphenated  Amer- 
icanism. When  I  refer  to  hyphenated  Americans,  I  do 
not  refer  to  naturalized  Americans.  Some  of  the  very 
best  Americans  I  have  ever  known  were  naturalized 
Americans,  Americans  born  abroad.  But  a  hyphenated 
American  is  not  an  American  at  all.  This  is  just  as  true 
of  the  man  who  puts  "native"  before  the  hyphen  as  of 
the  man  who  puts  German  or  Irish  or  English  or  French 
before  the  hyphen.  Americanism  is  a  matter  of  the  spirit 



and  of  the  soul.  Our  allegiance  must  be  purely  to  the 
United  States.  We  must  unsparingly  condemn  any  man 
who  holds  any  other  allegiance.  But  if  he  is  heartily  and 
singly  loyal  to  this  Republic,  then  no  matter  where  he  was 
born,  he  is  just  as  good  an  American  as  any  one  else. 

The  one  absolutely  certain  way  of  bringing  this  nation 
to  ruin,  of  preventing  all  possibility  of  its  continuing  to 
be  a  nation  at  all,  would  be  to  permit  it  to  become  a 
tangle  of  squabbling  nationalities,  an  intricate  knot  of 
German-Americans,  Irish- Americans,  English- Americans, 
French-Americans,  Scandinavian-Americans  or  Italian- 
Americans,  each  preserving  its  separate  nationality,  each 
at  heart  feeling  more  sympathy  with  Europeans  of  that 
nationality  than  with  the  other  citizens  of  the  American 
Republic.  The  men  who  do  not  become  Americans  and 
nothing  else  are  hyphenated  Americans ;  and  there  ought 
to  be  no  room  for  them  in  this  country.  The  man  who 
calls  himself  an  American  citizen  and  who  yet  shows  by 
his  actions  that  he  is  primarily  the  citizen  of  a  foreign 
land,  plays  a  thoroughly  mischievous  part  in  the  life  of 
our  body  politic.  He  has  no  place  here ;  and  the  sooner  he 
returns  to  the  land  to  which  he  feels  his  real  heart-allegi- 
ance, the  better  it  will  be  for  every  good  American.  There 
is  no  such  thing  as  a  hyphenated  American  who  is  a  good 
American.  The  only  man  who  is  a  good  American  is  the 
man  who  is  an  American  and  nothing  else. 

I  appeal  to  history.  Among  the  generals  of  Wash- 
ington in  the  Revolutionary  War  were  Greene,  Putnam 
and  Lee,  who  were  of  English  descent ;  Wayne  and  Sulli- 
van, who  were  of  Irish  descent;  Marion,  who  was  of 
French  descent ;  Schuyler,  who  was  of  Dutch  descent,  and 
Muhlenberg  and  Herkimer,  who  were  of  German  descent. 
But  they  were  all  of  them  Americans  and  nothing  else, 
just  as  much  as  Washington.  Carroll  of  Carrollton  was 



a  Catholic ;  Hancock  a  Protestant ;  Jefferson  was  hetero- 
dox from  the  standpoint  of  any  orthodox  creed  ;  but  these 
and  all  the  other  signers  of  the  Declaration  of  Independ- 
ence stood  on  an  equality  of  duty  and  right  and  liberty, 
as  Americans  and  nothing  else. 

So  it  was  in  the  Civil  War.  Farragut's  father  was  born 
in  Spain  and  Sheridan's  father  in  Ireland ;  Sherman  and 
Thomas  were  of  English  and  Custer  of  German  descent ; 
and  Grant  came  of  a  long  line  of  American  ancestors 
whose  original  home  had  been  Scotland.  But  the  Admiral 
was  not  a  Spanish- American ;  and  the  Generals  were  not 
Scotch-Americans  or  Irish-Americans  or  English-Amer- 
icans or  German-Americans.  They  were  all  Americans 
and  nothing  else.  This  was  just  as  true  of  Lee  and  of 
Stonewall  Jackson  and  of  Beauregard. 

When  in  1909  our  battlefleet  returned  from  its  voyage 
around  the  world,  Admirals  Wainwright  and  Schroeder 
represented  the  best  traditions  and  the  most  efficient 
action  in  our  navy ;  one  was  of  old  American  blood  and  of 
English  descent ;  the  other  was  the  son  of  German  immi- 
grants. But  one  was  not  a  native-American  and  the 
other  a  German- American.  Each  was  an  American  pure 
and  simple.  Each  bore  allegiance  only  to  the  flag  of  the 
United  States.  Each  would  have  been  incapable  of  con- 
sidering the  interests  of  Germany  or  of  England  or  of  any 
other  country  except  the  United  States. 

To  take  charge  of  the  most  important  work  under  my 
administration,  the  building  of  the  Panama  Canal,  I 
chose  General  Goethals.  Both  of  his  parents  were  born 
in  Holland.  But  he  was  just  plain  United  States.  He 
wasn't  a  Dutch- American ;  if  he  had  been  I  wouldn't  have 
appointed  him.  So  it  was  with  such  men,  among  those 
who  served  under  me,  as  Admiral  Osterhaus  and  General 
Barry.  The  father  of  one  was  born  in  Germany,  the 



father  of  the  other  in  Ireland.  But  they  were  both  Amer- 
icans, pure  and  simple,  and  first  rate  fighting  men  in  addi- 

In  my  Cabinet  at  the  time  there  were  men  of  English 
and  French,  German,  Irish  and  Dutch  blood,  men  born 
on  this  side  and  men  born  in  Germany  and  Scotland ;  but 
they  were  all  Americans  and  nothing  else ;  and  every  one 
of  them  was  incapable  of  thinking  of  himself  or  of  his 
fellow-countrymen,  excepting  in  terms  of  American  citi- 
zenship. If  any  one  of  them  had  anything  in  the  nature 
of  a  dual  or  divided  allegiance  in  his  soul,  he  never  would 
have  been  appointed  to  serve  under  me,  and  he  would 
have  been  instantly  removed  when  the  discovery  was 
made.  There  wasn't  one  of  them  who  was  capable  of 
desiring  that  the  policy  of  the  United  States  should  be 
shaped  with  reference  to  the  interests  of  any  foreign 
country  or  with  consideration  for  anything,  outside  of 
the  general  welfare  of  humanity,  save  the  honor  and 
interest  of  the  United  States,  and  each  was  incapable  of 
making  any  discrimination  whatsoever  among  the  citizens 
of  the  country  he  served,  of  our  common  country,  save 
discrimination  based  on  conduct  and  on  conduct  alone. 

For  an  American  citizen  to  vote  as  a  German-Amer- 
ican, an  Irish-American  or  an  English-American  is  to  be 
a  traitor  to  American  institutions ;  and  those  hyphenated 
Americans  who  terrorize  American  politicians  by  threats 
of  the  foreign  vote  are  engaged  in  treason  to  the  Amer- 
ican Republic. 

Now  this  is  a  declaration  of  principles.  How  are  we 
in  practical  fashion  to  secure  the  making  of  these  prin- 
ciples part  of  the  very  fiber  of  our  national  life?  First 
and  foremost  let  us  all  resolve  that  in  this  country  here- 
after we  shall  place  far  less  emphasis  upon  the  question 
of  right  and  much  greater  emphasis  upon  the  matter  of 



duty.  A  republic  can't  succeed  and  won't  succeed  in  the 
tremendous  international  stress  of  the  modern  world 
unless  its  citizens  possess  that  form  of  high-minded 
patriotism  which  consists  in  putting  devotion  to  duty 
before  the  question  of  individual  rights.  This  must  be 
done  in  our  family  relations  or  the  family  will  go  to 
pieces ;  and  no  better  tract  for  family  life  in  this  country 
can  be  imagined  than  the  little  story  called  "Mother," 
written  by  an  American  woman,  Kathleen  Norris,  who 
happens  to  be  a  member  of  your  own  church. 

What  is  true  of  the  family,  the  foundation  stone  of 
our  national  life,  is  not  less  true  of  the  entire  super- 
structure. I  am,  as  you  know,  a  most  ardent  believer  in 
national  preparedness  against  war  as  a  means  of  securing 
that  honorable  and  self-respecting  peace  which  is  the 
only  peace  desired  by  all  high-spirited  people.  But  it  is 
an  absolute  impossibility  to  secure  such  preparedness  in 
full  and  proper  form  if  it  is  an  isolated  feature  of  our 
policy.  The  lamentable  fate  of  Belgium  has  shown  that 
no  justice  in  legislation  or  success  in  business  will  be  of 
the  slightest  avail  if  the  nation  has  not  prepared  in  ad- 
vance the  strength  to  protect  its  rights.  But  it  is  equally 
true  that  there  cannot  be  this  preparation  in  advance  for 
military  strength  unless  there  is  a  solid  basis  of  civil  and 
social  life  behind  it.  There  must  be  social,  economic  and 
military  preparedness  all  alike,  all  harmoniously  devel- 
oped; and  above  all  there  must  be  spiritual  and  mental 

There  must  be  not  merely  preparedness  in  things  ma- 
terial ;  there  must  be  preparedness  in  soul  and  mind.  To 
prepare  a  great  army  and  navy  without  preparing  a 
proper  national  spirit  would  avail  nothing.  And  if  there 
is  not  only  a  proper  national  spirit  but  proper  national 
intelligence,  we  shall  realize  that  even  from  the  stand- 


point  of  the  army  and  navy  some  civil  preparedness  is 
indispensable.  For  example,  a  plan  for  national  defence 
which  does  not  include  the  most  far-reaching  use  and 
co-operation  of  our  railroads  must  prove  largely  futile. 
These  railroads  are  organized  in  time  of  peace.  But  we 
must  have  the  most  carefully  thought  out  organization 
from  the  national  and  centralized  standpoint  in  order  to 
use  them  in  time  of  war.  This  means  first  that  those  in 
charge  of  them  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest  must 
understand  their  duty  in  time  of  war,  must  be  permeated 
with  the  spirit  of  genuine  patriotism;  and  second,  that 
they  and  we  shall  understand  that  efficiency  is  as  essen- 
tial as  patriotism;  one  is  useless  without  the  other. 

Again :  every  citizen  should  be  trained  sedulously  by 
every  activity  at  our  command  to  realize  his  duty  to  the 
nation.  In  France  at  this  moment  the  workingmen  who 
are  not  at  the  front  are  spending  all  their  energies  with 
the  single  thought  of  helping  their  brethren  at  the  front 
by  what  they  do  in  the  munition  plants,  on  the  railroads, 
in  the  factories.  It  is  a  shocking,  a  lamentable  thing  that 
many  of  the  trade  unions  of  England  have  taken  a 
directly  opposite  view.  It  is  doubtless  true  that  many 
of  their  employers  have  made  excessive  profits  out  of 
war  conditions;  and  the  Government  should  have  dras- 
tically controlled  and  minimized  such  profit-making. 
Such  wealthy  men  should  be  dealt  with  in  radical  fashion  ; 
but  their  misconduct  doesn't  excuse  the  misconduct  of 
those  labor  men  who  are  trying  to  make  gains  at  the 
cost  of  their  brethren  who  fight  in  the  trenches.  The 
thing  for  us  Americans  to  realize  is  that  we  must  do 
our  best  to  prevent  similar  conditions  from  growing 
up  here.  Business  men,  professional  men,  and  wage 
workers  alike  must  understand  that  there  should  be  no 
question  of  their  enjoying  any  rights  whatsoever  un- 



less  in  the  fullest  way  they  recognize  and  live  up  to  the 
duties  that  go  with  those  rights.  This  is  just  as  true  of 
the  corporation  as  of  the  trade  union,  and  if  either  cor- 
poration or  trade  union  fails  heartily  to  acknowledge  this 
truth,  then  its  activities  are  necessarily  anti-social  and 
detrimental  to  the  welfare  of  the  body  politic  as  a  whole. 
In  war  time,  when  the  welfare  of  the  nation  is  at  stake, 
it  should  be  accepted  as  axiomatic  that  the  employer  is 
to  make  no  profit  out  of  the  war  save  that  which  is 
necessary  to  the  efficient  running  of  the  business  and  to 
the  living  expenses  of  himself  and  family,  and  that  the 
wage  worker  is  to  treat  his  wage  from  exactly  the  same 
standpoint  and  is  to  see  to  it  that  the  labor  organization 
to  which  he  belongs  is,  in  all  its  activities,  subordinated 
to  the  service  of  the  nation. 

Now  there  must  be  some  application  of  this  spirit  in 
times  of  peace  or  we  cannot  suddenly  develop  it  in  time 
of  war.  The  strike  situation  in  the  United  States  at  this 
time  is  a  scandal  to  the  country  as  a  whole  and  discredit- 
able alike  to  employer  and  employee.  Any  employer  who 
fails  to  recognize  that  human  rights  come  first  and  that 
the  friendly  relationship  between  himself  and  those  work- 
ing for  him  should  be  one  of  partnership  and  comrade- 
ship in  mutual  help  no  less  than  self-help  is  recreant  to 
his  duty  as  an  American  citizen  and  it  is  to  his  interest, 
having  in  view  the  enormous  destruction  of  life  in  the 
present  war,  to  conserve,  and  to  train  to  higher  efficiency 
alike  for  his  benefit  and  for  its,  the  labor  supply.  In 
return  any  employee  who  acts  along  the  lines  publicly 
advocated  by  the  men  who  profess  to  speak  for  the 
I.  W.  W.  is  not  merely  an  open  enemy  of  business  but  of 
this  entire  country  and  is  out  of  place  in  our  government. 

You,  Knights  of  Columbus,  are  particularly  fitted  to 
play  a  great  part  in  the  movement  for  national  solidarity, 



without  which  there  can  be  no  real  efficiency  in  either 
peace  or  war.  During  the  last  year  and  a  quarter  it  has 
been  brought  home  to  us  in  startling  fashion  that  many 
of  the  elements  of  our  nation  are  not  yet  properly  fused. 
It  ought  to  be  a  literally  appalling  fact  that  members  of 
two  of  the  foreign  embassies  in  this  country  have  been 
discovered  to  be  implicated  in  inciting  their  fellow-coun- 
trymen, whether  naturalized  American  citizens  or  not,  to 
the  destruction  of  property  and  the  crippling  of  American 
industries  that  are  operating  in  accordance  with  internal 
law  and  international  agreement.  The  malign  activity 
of  one  of  these  embassies,  the  Austrian,  has  been  brought 
home  directly  to  the  ambassador  in  such  shape  that  his 
recall  has  been  forced.  The  activities  of  the  other,  the 
German,  have  been  set  forth  in  detail  by  the  publication 
in  the  press  of  its  letters  in  such  fashion  as  to  make  it 
perfectly  clear  that  they  were  of  the  same  general  char- 
acter. Of  course,  the  two  embassies  were  merely  carry- 
ing out  the  instructions  of  their  home  governments. 

Nor  is  it  only  the  Germans  and  Austrians  who  take  the 
view  that  as  a  matter  of  right  they  can  treat  their  coun- 
trymen resident  in  America,  even  if  naturalized  citizens 
of  the  United  States,  as  their  allies  and  subjects  to  be 
used  in  keeping  alive  separate  national  groups  profoundly 
anti- American  in  sentiment  if  the  contest  comes  between 
American  interests  and  those  of  foreign  lands  in  ques- 
tion. It  has  recently  been  announced  that  the  Russian 
government  is  to  rent  a  house  in  New  York  as  a  national 
center  to  be  Russian  in  faith  and  patriotism,  to  foster 
the  Russian  language  and  keep  alive  the  national  feeling 
in  immigrants  who  come  hither.  All  of  this  is  utterly 
antagonistic  to  proper  American  sentiment,  whether  per- 
petrated in  the  name  of  Germany,  of  Austria,  of  Russia, 
of  England,  or  France  or  any  other  country. 



We  should  meet  this  situation  by  on  the  one  hand 
seeing  that  these  immigrants  get  all  their  rights  as  Amer- 
ican citizens,  and  on  the  other  hand  insisting  that  they 
live  up  to  their  duties  as  American  citizens.  Any  dis- 
crimination against  aliens  is  a  wrong,  for  it  tends  to  put 
the  immigrant  at  a  disadvantage  and  to  cause  him  to  feel 
bitterness  and  resentment  during  the  very  years  when 
he  should  be  preparing  himself  for  American  citizenship. 
If  an  immigrant  is  not  fit  to  become  a  citizen,  he  should 
not  be  allowed  to  come  here.  If  he  is  fit,  he  should  be 
given  all  the  rights  to  earn  his  own  livelihood,  and  to 
better  himself,  that  any  man  can  have.  Take  such  a  mat- 
ter as  the  illiteracy  test ;  I  entirely  agree  with  those  who 
feel  that  many  very  excellent  possible  citizens  would  be 
barred  improperly  by  an  illiteracy  test.  But  why  do  you 
not  admit  aliens  under  a  bond  to  learn  to  read  and  write 
English  within  a  certain  time  ?  It  would  then  be  a  duty  to 
see  that  they  were  given  ample  opportunity  to  learn  to 
read  and  write  and  that  they  were  deported  if  they  failed 
to  take  advantage  of  the  opportunity.  No  man  can  be  a 
good  citizen  if  he  is  not  at  least  in  process  of  learning  to 
speak  the  language  of  his  fellow-citizens.  And  an  alien 
who  remains  here  without  learning  to  speak  English  for 
more  than  a  certain  number  of  years  should  at  the  end  of 
that  time  be  treated  as  haying  refused  to  take  the  pre- 
liminary steps  necessary  to  complete  Americanization  and 
should  be  deported.  But  there  should  be  no  denial  or 
limitation  of  the  alien's  opportunity  to  work,  to  own 
property  and  to  take  advantage  of  civic  opportunities. 
Special  legislation  should  deal  with  the  aliens  who  do  not 
come  here  to  be  made  citizens.  But  the  alien  who  comes 
here  intending  to  become  a  citizen  should  be  helped  in 
every  way  to  advance  himself,  should  be  removed  from 
every  possible  disadvantage  and  in  return  should  be  re- 



quired  under  penalty  of  being  sent  back  to  the  country 
from  which  he  came,  to  prove  that  he  is  in  good  faith 
fitting  himself  to  be  an  American  citizen.  We  should  set 
a  high  standard,  and  insist  on  men  reaching  it;  but  if 
they  do  reach  it  we  should  treat  them  as  on  a  full  equality 
with  ourselves. 

Therefore,  we  should  devote  ourselves  as  a  preparative 
to  preparedness,  alike  in  peace  and  war,  to  secure  the 
three  elemental  things ;  one,  a  common  language,  the  Eng- 
lish language;  two,  the  increase  in  our  social  loyalty — 
citizenship  absolutely  undivided,  a  citizenship  which  ac- 
knowledges no  flag  except  the  flag  of  the  United  States 
and  which  emphatically  repudiates  all  duality  of  na- 
tional loyalty;  and  third,  an  intelligent  and  resolute 
effort  for  the  removal  of  industrial  and  social  unrest,  an 
effort  which  shall  aim  equally  to  secure  every  man  his 
rights  and  to  make  every  man  understand  that  unless  he 
in  good  faith  performs  his  duties  he  is  not  entitled  to  any 
rights  at  all. 

The  American  people  should  itself  do  these  things  for 
the  immigrants.  If  we  leave  the  immigrant  to  be  helped 
by  representatives  of  foreign  governments,  by  foreign 
societies,  by  a  press  and  institutions  conducted  in  a  for- 
eign language  and  in  the  interest  of  foreign  governments, 
and  if  we  permit  the  immigrants  to  exist  as  alien  groups, 
each  group  sundered  from  the  rest  of  the  citizens  of  the 
country,  we  shall  store  up  for  ourselves  bitter  trouble  in 
the  future. 

I  am  certain  that  the  only  permanently  safe  attitude 
for  this  country  as  regards  national  preparedness  for  self- 
defense  is  along  the  lines  of  obligatory  universal  service 
on  the  Swiss  model.  Switzerland  is  the  most  democratic 
of  nations.  Its  army  is  the  most  democratic  army  in  the 
world.  There  isn't  a  touch  of  militarism  or  aggressive- 



ness  about  Switzerland.  It  has  been  found  as  a  matter 
of  actual  practical  experience  in  Switzerland  that  the 
universal  military  training  has  made  a  very  marked  in- 
crease in  social  efficiency  and  in  the  ability  of  the  man 
thus  trained  to  do  well  for  himself  in  industry.  The  man 
who  has  received  the  training  is  a  better  citizen,  is  more 
self-respecting,  more  orderly,  better  able  to  hold  his  own, 
and  more  willing  to  respect  the  rights  of  others,  and  at 
the  same  time  he  is  a  more  valuable  and  better  paid  man 
in  his  business.  We  need  that  the  navy  and  the  army 
should  be  greatly  increased  and  that  their  efficiency  as 
units  and  in  the  aggregate  should  be  increased  to  an  even 
greater  degree  than  their  numbers.  An  adequate  regular 
reserve  should  be  established.  Economy  should  be  in- 
sisted on,  and  first  of  all  in  the  abolition  of  useless  army 
posts  and  navy  yards.  The  National  Guard  should  be 
supervised  and  controlled  by  the  Federal  War  Depart- 
ment. Training  camps  such  as  at  Plattsburg  should  be 
provided  on  a  nation-wide  basis  and  the  government 
should  pay  the  expenses.  Foreign-born  as  well  as  native- 
born  citizens  should  be  brought  together  in  those  camps ; 
and  each  man  at  the  camp  should  take  the  oath  of  allegi- 
ance as  unreservedly  and  unqualifiedly  as  the  men  of  the 
regular  army  and  navy  now  take  it.  Not  only  should 
battleships,  battle  cruisers,  submarines,  aircraft,  ample 
coast  and  field  artillery  be  provided  and  a  greater  am- 
munition supply  system,  but  there  should  be  a  utilization 
of  those  engaged  in  such  professions  as  the  ownership 
and  management  of  motor  cars,  aviation,  and  the  profes- 
sion of  engineering.  Map-making  and  road  improve- 
ment should  be  attended  to,  and,  as  I  have  already  said, 
the  railroads  brought  into  intimate  touch  with  the  War 
Department.  Moreover,  the  government  should  deal 
with  conservation  of  all  necessary  war  supplies  such  as 



mine  products,  potash,  oil  lands  and  the  like.  Further- 
more, all  munition  plants  should  be  carefully  surveyed 
with  special  reference  to  their  geographic  distribution. 
Provision  should  be  made  for  munition  and  supply  fac- 
tories west  of  the  Alleghenies.  Finally,  remember  that 
the  men  must  be  sedulously  trained  in  peace  to  use  this 
material  or  we  shall  merely  prepare  our  ships,  guns  and 
products  as  gifts  to  the  enemy.  All  of  these  things 
should  be  done  in  any  event.  But  let  us  never  forget  that 
the  most  important  of  all  things  is  to  introduce  universal 
military  service. 

Let  me  repeat  that  this  preparedness  against  war  must 
be  based  upon  efficiency  and  justice  in  the  handling 
of  ourselves  in  time  of  peace.  If  belligerent  govern- 
ments, while  we  are  not  hostile  to  them  but  merely  neu- 
tral, strive  nevertheless  to  make  of  this  nation  many 
nations,  each  hostile  to  the  others  and  none  of  them  loyal 
to  the  central  government,  then  it  may  be  accepted  as 
certain  that  they  would  do  far  worse  to  us  in  time  of  war. 
If  Germany  and  Austria  encourage  strikes  and  sabotage 
in  our  munition  plants  while  we  are  neutral  it  may  be 
accepted  as  axiomatic  that  they  would  do  far  worse  to 
us  if  we  were  hostile.  It  is  our  duty  from  the  stand- 
point of  self-defence  to  secure  the  complete  Americani- 
zation of  our  people;  to  make  of  the  many  peoples  of 
this  country  a  united  nation,  one  in  speech  and  feeling 
and  all,  so  far  as  possible,  sharers  in  the  best  that  each 
has  brought  to  our  shores. 

The  foreign-born  population  of  this  country  must  be  an 
Americanized  population — no  other  kind  can  fight  the 
battles  of  America  either  in  war  or  peace.  It  must  talk 
the  language  of  its  native-born  fellow  citizens,  it  must 
possess  American  citizenship  and  American  ideals — and 
therefore  we  native  born  citizens  must  ourselves  prac- 



tice  a  high  and  fine  idealism,  and  shun  as  we  would  the 
plague  the  sordid  materialism  which  treats  pecuniary 
profit  and  gross  bodily  comfort  as  the  only  evidences 
of  success.  It  must  stand  firm  by  its  oath  of  allegiance  in 
word  and  deed  and  must  show  that  in  very  fact  it  has  re- 
nounced allegiance  to  every  prince,  potentate  or  foreign 
government.  It  must  be  maintained  on  an  American 
standard  of  living  so  as  to  prevent  labor  disturbances  in 
important  plants  and  at  critical  times.  None  of  these  ob- 
jects can  be  secured  as  long  as  we  have  immigrant  colo- 
nies, ghettos,  and  immigrant  sections,  and  above  all  they 
cannot  be  assured  so  long  as  we  consider  the  immigrant 
only  as  an  industrial  asset.  The  immigrant  must  not  be  al- 
lowed to  drift  or  to  be  put  at  the  mercy  of  the  exploiter. 
Our  object  is  not  to  imitate  one  of  the  older  racial  types, 
but  to  maintain  a  new  American  type  and  then  to  secure 
loyalty  to  this  type.  We  cannot  secure  such  loyalty 
unless  we  make  this  a  country  where  men  shall  feel  that 
they  have  justice  and  also  where  they  shall  feel  that  they 
are  required  to  perform  the  duties  imposed  upon  them. 
The  policy  of  "Let  alone"  which  we  have  hitherto  pur- 
sued is  thoroughly  vicious  from  two  standpoints.  By  this 
policy  we  have  permitted  the  immigrants,  and  too  often 
the  native-born  laborers  as  well,  to  suffer  injustice. 
Moreover,  by  this  policy  we  have  failed  to  impress  upon 
the  immigrant  and  upon  the  native-born  as  well  that  they 
are  expected  to  do  justice  as  well  as  to  receive  justice, 
that  they  are  expected  to  be  heartily  and  actively  and 
single-mindedly  loyal  to  the  flag  no  less  than  to  benefit  by 
living  under  it. 

We  cannot  afford  to  continue  to  use  hundreds  of  thou- 
sands of  immigrants  merely  as  industrial  assets  while 
they  remain  social  outcasts  and  menaces  any  more  than 
fifty  years  ago  we  could  afford  to  keep  the  black  man 



merely  as  an  industrial  asset  and  not  as  a  human  being. 
We  cannot  afford  to  build  a  big  industrial  plant  and  herd 
men  and  women  about  it  without  care  for  their  welfare. 
We  cannot  afford  to  permit  squalid  overcrowding  or  the 
kind  of  living  system  which  makes  impossible  the  decen- 
cies and  necessities  of  life.  We  cannot  afford  the  low 
wage  rates  and  the  merely  seasonal  industries  which 
mean  the  sacrifice  of  both  individual  and  family  life  and 
morals  to  the  industrial  machinery.  We  cannot  afford 
to  leave  American  mines,  munitions  plants  and  general 
resources  in  the  hands  of  alien  workmen,  alien  to  Amer- 
ica and  even  likely  to  be  made  hostile  to  America  by 
machinations  such  as  have  recently  been  provided  in  the 
case  of  the  above-named  foreign  embassies  in  Washing- 
ton. We  cannot  afford  to  run  the  risk  of  having  in  time 
of  war  men  working  on  our  railways  or  working  in  our 
munition  plants  who  would  in  the  name  of  duty  to  their 
own  foreign  countries  bring  destruction  to  us.  Recent 
events  have  shown  us  that  incitements  to  sabotage  and 
strikes  are  in  the  view  of  at  least  two  of  the  great  foreign 
powers  of  Europe  within  their  definition  of  neutral  prac- 
tices. What  would  be  done  to  us  in  the  name  of  war 
if  these  things  are  done  to  us  in  the  name  of  neutrality? 

Justice  Bowling  in  his  speech  has  described  the  excel- 
lent fourth  degree  of  your  order,  of  how  in  it  you  dwell 
upon  duties  rather  than  rights,  upon  the  great  duties  of 
patriotism  and  of  national  spirit.  It  is  a  fine  thing  to 
have  a  society  that  holds  up  such  a  standard  of  duty. 
I  ask  you  to  make  a  special  effort  to  deal  with  Amer- 
icanization, the  fusing  into  one  nation,  a  nation  necessar- 
ily different  from  all  other  nations,  of  all  who  come  to 
our  shores.  Pay  heed  to  the  three  principal  essentials: 
(i)  The  need  of  a  common  language,  English,  with  a 
minimum  amount  of  illiteracy;  (2)  the  need  of  a  com- 



mon  civil  standard,  similar  ideals,  beliefs  and  customs 
symbolized  by  the  oath  of  allegiance  to  America ;  and  (3) 
the  need  of  a  high  standard  of  living,  of  reasonable  equal- 
ity of  opportunity  and  of  social  and  industrial  justice.  In 
every  great  crisis  in  our  history,  in  the  Revolution  and  in 
the  Civil  War,  and  in  the  lesser  crises,  like  the  Spanish 
War,  all  factions  and  races  have  been  forgotten  in  the 
common  spirit  of  Americanism.  Protestant  and  Cath- 
olic, men  of  English  or  of  French,  of  Irish  or  of  German 
descent,  have  joined  with  a  single-minded  purpose  to 
secure  for  the  country  what  only  can  be  achieved  by  the 
resultant  union  of  all  patriotic  citizens.  You  of  this 
organization  have  done  a  great  service  by  your  insistence 
that  citizens  should  pay  heed  first  of  all  to  their  duties. 
Hitherto  undue  prominence  has  been  given  to  the  ques- 
tion of  rights.  Your  organization  is  a  splendid  engine  for 
giving  to  the  stranger  within  our  gates  a  high  conception 
of  American  citizenship.  Strive  for  unity.  We  suffer  at 
present  from  a  lack  of  leadership  in  these  matters. 

Even  in  the  matter  of  national  defence  there  is  such  a 
labyrinth  of  committees  and  counsels  and  advisers  that 
there  is  a  tendency  on  the  part  of  the  average  citizen  to 
become  confused  and  do  nothing.  I  ask  you  to  help 
strike  the  note  that  shall  unite  our  people.  As  a  people 
we  must  be  united.  If  we  are  not  united  we  shall  slip 
into  the  gulf  of  measureless  disaster.  We  must  be  strong 
in  purpose  for  our  own  defence  and  bent  on  securing 
justice  within  our  borders.  If  as  a  nation  we  are  split 
into  warring  camps,  if  we  teach  our  citizens  not  to  look 
upon  one  another  as  brothers  but  as  enemies  divided  by 
the  hatred  of  creed  for  creed  or  of  those  of  one  race 
against  those  of  another  race,  surely  we  shall  fail  and 
our  great  democratic  experiment  on  this  continent  will 
go  down  in  crushing  overthrow.  I  ask  you  here  to-night 



and  those  like  you  to  take  a  foremost  part  in  the  move- 
ment— a  young  men's  movement — for  a  greater  and  bet- 
ter America  in  the  future. 

All  of  us,  no  matter  from  what  land  our  parents  came, 
no  matter  in  what  way  we  may  severally  worship  our 
Creator,  must  stand  shoulder  to  shoulder  in  a  united 
America  for  the  elimination  of  race  and  religious  preju- 
dice. We  must  stand  for  a  reign  of  equal  justice  to  both 
big  and  small.  We  must  insist  on  the  maintenance  of  the 
American  standard  of  living.  We  must  stand  for  an 
adequate  national  control  which  shall  secure  a  better 
training  of  our  young  men  in  time  of  peace,  both  for  the 
work  of  peace  and  for  the  work  of  war.  We  must  direct 
every  national  resource,  material  and  spiritual,  to  the 
task  not  of  shirking  difficulties,  but  of  training  our  people 
to  overcome  difficulties.  Our  aim  must  be,  not  to  make 
life  easy  and  soft,  not  to  soften  soul  and  body,  but  to  fit 
us  in  virile  fashion  to  do  a  great  work  for  all  mankind. 
This  great  work  can  only  be  done  by  a  mighty  democracy, 
with  those  qualities  of  soul,  guided  by  those  qualities  of 
mind,  which  will  both  make  it  refuse  to  do  injustice  to 
any  other  nation,  and  also  enable  it  to  hold  its  own 
against  aggression  by  any  other  nation.  In  our  relations 
with  the  outside  world,  we  must  abhor  wrongdoing,  and 
disdain  to  commit  it,  and  we  must  no  less  disdain  the 
baseness  of  spirit  which  tamely  submits  to  wrongdoing. 
Finally  and  most  important  of  all,  we  must  strive  for  the 
establishment  within  our  own  borders  of  that  stern  and 
lofty  standard  of  personal  and  public  morality  which 
shall  guarantee  to  each  man  his  rights,  and  which  shall 
insist  in  return  upon  the  full  performance  by  each  man 
of  his  duties  both  to  his  neighbor  and  to  the  great  nation 
whose  flag  must  symbolize  in  the  future  as  it  has  symbol- 
ized in  the  past  the  highest  hopes  of  all  mankind. 



November  24,  1915. 
My  dear  Mr.  Dutton: 

Even  to  nerves  dulled  and  jaded  by  the  heaped-up 
horrors  of  the  past  year  and  a  half,  the  news  of  the 
terrible  fate  that  has  befallen  the  Armenians  must  give 
a  fresh  shock  of  sympathy  and  indignation.  Let  me 
emphatically  point  out  that  the  sympathy  is  useless  un- 
less it  is  accompanied  with  indignation,  and  that  the 
indignation  is  useless  if  it  exhausts  itself  in  words  in- 
stead of  taking  shape  in  deeds. 

If  this  people  through  its  government  had  not  shirked 
its  duty  in  Mexico  for  the  last  five  years,  and  if  this 
people  through  its  government  had  not  shirked  its  duty 
in  connection  with  the  world  war  for  the  last  six- 
teen months,  we  would  now  be  able  to  take  effective 
action  on  behalf  of  Armenia.  Mass  meetings  on  behalf 
of  the  Armenians  amount  to  nothing  whatever  if  they 
are  mere  methods  of  giving  a  sentimental  but  ineffective 
and  safe  outlet  to  the  emotion  of  those  engaged  in  them. 
Indeed  they  amount  to  less,  than  nothing.  The  habit 
of  giving  emotional  expression  to  feelings  without  fol- 
lowing the  expression  by  action  is  in  the  end  thoroughly 
detrimental  both  to  the  will  power  and  to  the  morality 
of  the  persons  concerned.  As  long  as  this  government 
proceeds,  whether  as  regards  Mexico  or  as  regards 
Germany,  whether  as  regards  the  European  War,  or  as 
regards  Belgium,  on  the  principles  of  the  peace-at-any- 
price  men,  of  the  professional  pacifists,  just  so  long 



it  will  be  as  absolutely  ineffective  for  international  right- 
eousness as  China  itself.  The  men  who  act  on  the  motto 
of  "safety  first"  are  acting  on  a  motto  which  could  be 
appropriately  used  by  the  men  on  a  sinking  steamer  who 
jump  into  the  boats  ahead  of  the  women  and  children 
— and  who  at  least  do  not  commemorate  this  fact  by 
wearing  buttons  with  "safety  first"  on  them  as  a  device. 
Until  we  put  honor  and  duty  first,  and  are  willing  to 
risk  something  in  order  to  achieve  righteousness  both 
for  ourselves  and  for  others,  we  shall  accomplish  noth- 
ing; and  we  shall  earn  and  deserve  the  contempt  of 
the  strong  nations  of  mankind. 

One  reason  why  I  do  not  wish  to  take  part  in  a  mass 
meeting  only  for  the  denunciation  of  the  atrocities  com- 
mitted on  the  Armenians  is  because  there  are  ignoble 
souls  who  have  preached  professional  pacifism  as  a 
creed,  or  who  have  refused  to  attend  similar  meetings 
on  behalf  of  the  Belgians,  who  yet  do  not  fear  to  take 
such  action  on  behalf  of  the  Armenians — for  the  simple 
reason  that  there  is  in  America  no  Turkish  vote,  and 
because  Turkey  is  not  our  neighbor  as  Mexico  is,  and 
not  a  formidable  aggressive  power  like  Germany,  and  so 
it  is  safe  both  politically  and  materially  to  denounce 
her.  The  American  professional  pacifists,  the  Ameri- 
can men  and  women  of  the  peace-at-any-price  type,  who 
join  in  meetings  to  "denounce  war"  or  with  empty  words 
"protest"  on  behalf  of  the  Armenians  or  other  tortured 
and  ruined  peoples  carry  precisely  the  weight  that  an 
equal  number  of  Chinese  pacifists  would  carry  if  at 
a  similar  meeting  they  went  through  similar  antics  in 
Peking.  They  do  not  wear  pigtails;  but  it  is  to  be  re- 
gretted that  they  do  not  carry  some  similar  outward  and 
visible  sign  of  their  inward  and  spiritual  disgrace.  They 
accomplish  nothing  for  peace;  and  they  do  accomplish 



something  against  justice.  They  do  harm  instead  of 
good;  and  they  deeply  discredit  the  nation  to  which 
they  belong.  It  was  announced  the  other  day,  by  cer- 
tain politicians  interested  in  securing  votes,  that  at  the 
end  of  the  war  this  Government  would  "insist"  on  Rus- 
sia and  Roumania  doing  justice  to  all  Jews.  The  con- 
duct of  this  Government  during  the  present  war,  and 
its  utter  refusal  to  back  words  with  deeds,  has  made 
it  utterly  unable  to  "insist"  on  anything  of  the  kind, 
whether  as  regards  Russia  or  Roumania  or  any  other 
power.  A  nation  too  timid  to  protect  its  own  men, 
women  and  children  from  murder  and  outrage  and  too 
timid  even  to  speak  on  behalf  of  Belgium,  will  not 
carry  much  weight  by  "protest"  or  "insistence"  on  be- 
half of  the  suffering  Jews  and  Armenians.  Foreign  pow- 
ers will  attribute  such  "protests"  or  "insistence,"  coupled 
with  our  failure  to  act  in  cases  of  other  nationalities, 
merely  to  the  fact  that  there  is  in  this  country  neither 
a  Russian  nor  a  Turkish  vote — and  will  despise  us 

All  of  the  terrible  iniquities  of  the  past  year  and 
a  half,  including  this  crowning  iniquity  of  the  whole- 
sale slaughter  of  the  Armenians,  can  be  traced  directly 
to  the  initial  wrong  committed  on  Belgium  by  her  in- 
vasion and  subjugation;  and  the  criminal  responsibility 
of  Germany  must  be  shared  by  the  neutral  powers, 
headed  by  the  United  States,  for  their  failure  to  pro- 
test when  this  initial  wrong  was  committed.  In  the 
case  of  the  United  States  additional  responsibility  rests 
upon  it  because  its  lack  of  influence  for  justice  and  peace 
during  the  last  sixteen  months  has  been  largely  due  to 
the  course  of  timid  and  unworthy  abandonment  of  duty 
which  it  has  followed  for  nearly  five  years  as  regards 
Mexico.  Scores  of  our  soldiers  have  been  killed  and 



wounded,  hundreds  of  our  civilians,  both  men  and 
women,  have  been  murdered  or  outraged  in  person  or 
property,  by  the  Mexicans ;  and  we  have  not  only  taken 
no  action  but  have  permitted  arms  to  be  exported  to 
the  bandits  who  were  cutting  one  another's  throats  in 
Mexico  and  who  used  these  arms  to  kill  Americans ;  and 
although  we  have  refused  to  help  our  own  citizens 
against  any  of  the  chiefs  of  these  bandits,  we  have 
now  and  then  improperly  helped  one  chief  against  an- 
other. The  failure  to  do  our  duty  in  Mexico  created 
the  contempt  which  made  Germany  rightfully  think  it 
safe  to  go  into  the  wholesale  murder  that  accompanied 
the  sinking  of  the  Lusitania;  and  the  failure  to  do  our 
duty  in  the  case  of  the  Lusitania  made  Germany,  acting 
through  Austria,  rightfully  think  it  safe  to  go  into  the 
wholesale  murder  that  marked  the  sinking  of  the 

The  invasion  of  Belgium  was  followed  by  a  policy 
of  terrorism  toward  the  Belgian  population,  the  shoot- 
ing of  men,  women  and  children,  the  destruction  of 
Dinant  and  Louvain  and  many  other  places;  the  bom- 
bardment of  unfortified  places,  not  only  by  ships  and 
by  land  forces  but  by  air-craft,  resulting  in  the  killing  of 
many  hundreds  of  civilians,  men,  women  and  children, 
in  England,  France,  Belgium  and  Italy;  in  the  destruc- 
tion of  mighty  temples  and  great  monuments  of  art, 
in  Rheims,  in  Venice,  in  Verona.  The  devastation  of 
Poland  and  of  Serbia  has  been  awful  beyond  descrip- 
tion and  has  been  associated  with  infamies  surpassing 
those  of  the  dreadful  religious  and  racial  wars  of 
seventeenth-century  Europe.  Such  deeds  as  have  been 
done  by  the  nominally  Christian  powers  in  Europe,  from 
the  invasion  of  Belgium  by  Germany  to  the  killing  of 
Miss  Cavell  by  the  German  Government,  things  done 



wholesale,  things  done  retail,  have  been  such  as  we 
had  hoped  would  never  again  occur  in  civilized  war- 
fare. They  are  far  worse  than  anything  that  has  oc- 
curred in  such  warfare  since  the  close  of  the  Napole- 
onic contests  a  century  ago.  Such  a  deed  as  the  exe- 
cution of  Miss  Cavell,  for  instance,  would  have  been 
utterly  impossible  in  the  days  of  the  worst  excitement 
during  our  Civil  War.  For  all  of  this,  the  pacifists 
who  dare  not  speak  for  righteousness,  and  who  pos- 
sess such  an  unpleasant  and  evil  prominence  in  the 
United  States,  must  share  the  responsibility  with  the 
most  brutal  type  of  militarists.  The  weak  and  timid 
milk-and-water  policy  of  the  professional  pacifists  is 
just  as  responsible  as  the  blood-and-iron  policy  of  the 
ruthless  and  unscrupulous  militarist  for  the  terrible 
recrudescence  of  evil  on  a  gigantic  scale  in  the  civilized 

The  crowning  outrage  has  been  committed  by  the. 
Turks  on  the  Armenians.  They  have  suffered  atrocities 
so  hideous  that  it  is  difficult  to  name  them,  atrocities 
such  as  those  inflicted  upon  conquered  nations  by  the 
followers  of  Attila  and  of  Genghis  Khan.  It  is  dread- 
ful to  think  that  these  things  can  be  done  and  that 
this  nation  nevertheless  remains  "neutral  not  only  in 
deed  but  in  thought,"  between  right  and  the  most  hide- 
ous wrong,  neutral  between  despairing  and  hunted  peo- 
ple, people  whose  little  children  are  murdered  and  their 
women  raped,  and  the  victorious  and  evil  wrong- 

There  are  many  sincere  and  wise  men  in  China  who 
are  now  endeavoring  to  lift  China  from  the  old  con- 
ditions. These  old  conditions  made  her  the  greatest 
example  of  a  pacifistic,  peace-at-any-price,  non-mili- 
taristic people.  Because  of  their  cult  of  pacifism,  the 


Chinese,  like  the  Koreans,  and  utterly  unlike  the  Jap- 
anese, became  absolutely  powerless  to  defend  them- 
selves, or  to  win  or  retain  the  respect  of  other  nations. 
They  were  also  of  course  utterly  helpless  to  work  for 
the  good  of  others.  The  professional  pacifists  of  the 
United  States  are  seeking  to  make  the  United  States 
follow  in  the  footsteps  of  China.  They  represent  what 
has  been  on  the  whole  the  most  evil  influence  at  work 
in  the  United  States  for  the  last  fifty  years;  and  for 
five  years  they  have  in  international  affairs  shaped  our 
governmental  policy.  These  men,  whether  politicians, 
publicists,  college  presidents,  capitalists,  labor  leaders, 
or  self-styled  philanthropists,  have  done  everything  they 
could  to  relax  the  fiber  of  the  American  character  and 
weaken  the  strength  of  the  American  will.  They  teach 
our  people  to  seek  that  debasing  security  which  is  to 
be  found  in  love  of  ease,  in  fear  of  risk,  in  the  craven 
effort  to  avoid  any  duty  that  is  hard  or  hazardous — 
a  security  which  purchases  peace  in  the  present  not  only 
at  the  cost  of  humiliation  in  the  present  but  at  the  cost 
of  disaster  in  the  future.  They  are  seeking  to  Chinafy 
this  country.  In  so  doing  they  not  only  make  us  work 
for  our  own  undoing,  and  for  the  ultimate  ruin  of  the 
great  democratic  experiment  for  which  our  great  Ameri- 
can republic  stands ;  but  they  also  render  us  utterly  pow- 
erless to  work  for  others.  We  have  refused  to  do  our 
duty  by  Belgium;  we  refuse  to  do  our  duty  by  Ar- 
menia; because  we  have  deified  peace  at  any  price,  be- 
cause we  have  preached  and  practised  that  evil  pacifism 
which  is  the  complement  to  and  the  encouragement  of 
alien  militarism.  Such  pacifism  puts  peace  above  right- 
eousness, and  safety  in  the  present  above  both  duty  in 
the  present  and  safety  in  the  future. 

J  trust  that  all  Americans  worthy  of  the  name  feel 


their  deepest  indignation  and  keenest  sympathy  aroused 
by  the  dreadful  Armenian  atrocities.  I  trust  that  they 
feel  in  the  same  way  about  the  ruin  of  Belgium's  na- 
tionality, and  realize  that  a  peace  obtained  without  re- 
storing Belgium  to  its  own  people  and  righting  the 
wrongs  of  the  Armenians  would  be  worse  than  any 
war.  I  trust  they  realize  that  unless  America  prepares 
to  defend  itself  she  can  perform  no  duty  to  others; 
and  under  such  circumstances  she  earns  only  derision 
if  she  prattles  about  forming  a  league  for  world  peace, 
or  about  arbitration  treaties  and  disarmament  proposals, 
and  commission-investigation  treaties  such  as  the  un- 
speakably foolish  ones  negotiated  a  year  or  two  ago  at 
Washington  and  promptly  disregarded  by  the  very  Ad- 
ministration that  negotiated  them. 

Let  us  realize  that  the  words  of  the  weakling  and 
the  coward,  of  the  pacifist  and  the  poltroon,  are  worth- 
less to  stop  wrongdoing.  Wrongdoing  will  only  be 
stopped  by  men  who  are  brave  as  well  as  just,  who  put 
honor  above  safety,  who  are  true  to  a  lofty  ideal  of 
duty,  who  prepare  in  advance  to  make  their  strength 
effective,  and  who  shrink  from  no  hazard,  not  even 
the  final  hazard  of  war,  if  necessary  in  order  to  serve 
the  great  cause  of  righteousness.  When  our  people 
take  this  stand,  we  shall  also  be  able  effectively  to  take 
a  stand  in  international  matters  which  shall  prevent  such 
cataclysms  of  wrong  as  have  been  witnessed  in  Belgium 
and  on  an  even  greater  scale  in  Armenia. 

Sincerely  yours, 


70  Fifth  Ave., 

New  York  City. 
Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  the  Armenian  Outrages. 


[Speech  of  Senator  Miles  Poindexter;  reprinted  from 
the  Congressional  Record  of  January  12,  1916.] 


IN  a  carefully  prepared  statement  issued  recently  at 
Washington  (Dec.  21,  1915)  the  Secretary  of  War, 
Mr.  Garrison,  representing  President  Wilson,  and  speak- 
ing in  the  unruffled  serenity  of  that  state  of  bliss  in  which 
'tis  said  'tis  folly  to  be  wise,  made  the  following  engag- 
ing observations : 

"Mr.  Roosevelt  is  welcomed  as  a  convert  on  the  issue 
of  preparedness,  but  the  front  pew  is  already  filled  be- 
fore the  conversion,  and  he  must  now  rely  on  the  strength 
of  his  voice  for  recognition. 

"  'Preparedness'    was    with    him    an    acquired    taste. 



Others  brought  it  forward  and  urged  it  upon  the  atten- 
tion of  the  people,  and  it  was  only  after  he  found  that 
it  suited  their  taste  that  he  became  vocal  in  its  behalf." 


"Mark  now,  how  plain  a  tale  shall  put  you  down,"  Mr. 

Theodore  Roosevelt  began  to  advocate  preparedness 
33  years  ago,  and  has  advocated  it  unceasingly  and  un- 
waveringly from  that  time  to  the  present  moment.  He 
has  been  during  all  those  years  at  every  opportunity 
not  merely  "vocal"  on  the  subject  but  vociferously  vocal. 

Shortly  after  his  graduation  from  Harvard  in  1882 
he  wrote  in  the  preface  to  his  history  of  the  War  of  1812 
these  passages: 


"The  operations  of  this  war  on  land  teach  nothing 
new;  it  is  the  old,  old  lesson  that  miserly  economy  in 
preparation  may  in  the  end  involve  a  lavish  outlay  of 
men  and  money  which,  after  all,  comes  too  late  to  more 
than  partially  offset  the  evils  produced  by  the  original 
shortsighted  parsimony.  It  was  criminal  folly  for  Jef- 
ferson and  his  follower,  Madison,  to  neglect  to  give  us 
a  force  either  of  Regulars  or  of  well-trained  Volunteers 
during  the  12  years  they  had  in  which  to  prepare  for 
the  struggle  that  any  one  might  see  was  inevitable. 

"The  necessity  for  an  efficient  Navy  is  so  evident 
that  only  our  almost  incredible  shortsightedness  prevents 
our  at  once  preparing  one." 

Fifteen  years  later,  writing  a  condensed  history  of 
the  same  war  for  an  English  publication,  Col.  Roosevelt 
reiterated  his  earlier  views : 


(From  "The  War  with  the  United  States,  1812-15," 


written  for  the  English  History  of  the  Royal  Navy  in 

"Had  America  possessed  (in  1812)  a  fleet  of  20  ships 
of  the  line  her  sailors  could  have  plied  their  trade  un- 
molested, and  the  three  years  of  war  with  its  loss  in 
blood  and  money  would  have  been  avoided.  From  the 
merely  monetary  standpoint  such  a  navy  would  have  been 
the  cheapest  kind  of  insurance,  and  morally  its  advan- 
tages would  have  been  incalculable,  for  every  Ameri- 
can worth  the  name  would  have  lifted  his  head  higher 
because  of  its  existence." 


"But  unfortunately  the  Nation  lacked  the  wisdom  to 
see  this,  and  it  chose  and  rechose  for  the  Presidency 
Thomas  Jefferson,  who  avowed  that  his  'passion  was 
peace,'  and  whose  timidity  surpassed  even  his  philan- 


"There  never  was  a  better  example  of  the  ultimate 
evil  caused  by  a  timid  effort  to  secure  peace  and  the 
refusal  to  make  preparations  for  war  than  that  afforded 
by  the  American  people  under  the  Presidencies  of  Jef- 
ferson and  Madison." 

These  citations  disclose  the  original  inventor  of  Presi- 
dent Wilson's  "too-proud-to-fight"  policy.  Jefferson's 
"passion  was  peace."  In  his  recent  address  to  Con- 
gress, President  Wilson  said  of  the  American  people 
that  "their  passion  is  for  peace." 

Instead  of  being  a  "convert"  to  any  phase  of  President 
Wilson's  policy,  18  years  before  that  policy  was  put 
into  operation  Theodore  Roosevelt  was  outlining  it  with 
singular  accuracy  and  denouncing  it  as  leading  to  na- 
tional humiliation  and  dishonor,  as  the  following  cita- 
tions abundantly  testify : 




(Address,  as  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  before 
the  Naval  War  College,  June,  1897.) 

"A  really  great  people,  proud  and  high-spirited,  would 
face  all  the  disasters  of  war  rather  than  purchase  that 
base  prosperity  which  is  bought  at  the  price  of  national 


"Unreadiness  for  war  is  merely  rendered  more  disas- 
trous by  readiness  to  bluster;  to  talk  defiance  and  advo- 
cate a  vigorous  policy  in  words,  while  refusing  to  back 
up  these  words  by  deeds,  is  cause  for  humiliation. 

No  material  loss  can  begin  to  compensate  for  the  loss 
of  national  self-respect. 

No  nation  should  ever  wage  war  wantonly,  but  no 
nation  should  ever  avoid  it  at  the  cost  of  national  honor." 


"Diplomacy  is  utterly  useless  unless  there  is  force  be- 
hind it;  the  diplomat  is  the  servant,  not  the  master,  of 
the  soldier." 


(Speech  at  Chicago,  April  2,  1903.) 

"This  is  in  substance  what  my  theory  of  what  our 
foreign  policy  should  be:  Let  us  not  boast,  not  insult 
any  one,  but  make  up  our  minds  coolly  what  is  neces- 
sary to  say,  and  then  stand  by  it  whatever  the  conse- 
quences may  be." 


(Speech  at  Clark  University,  Worcester,  Mass.,  June 
21,  1905.) 

"Peace  of  a  valuable  type  comes  not  to  the  man  who 


craves  it  because  he  is  afraid,  but  to  the  man  who  de- 
mands it  because  it  is  right. 

The  peace  granted  contemptuously  to  the  weakling 
and  the  coward  is  but  a  poor  boon  after  it  has  been 


(Address  at  Williams  College,  Williamstown,  Mass., 
June  22,  1905.) 

"I  demand  that  the  Nation  do  its  duty  and  accept  the 
responsibility  that  must  go  with  greatness. 

I  ask  that  the  Nation  dare  to  be  great,"  and  that  in 
daring  to  be  great  it  show  that  it  knows  how  to  do  jus- 
tice to  the  weak  no  less  than  to  exact  justice  from  the 

In  order  to  take  such  a  position  of  being  a  great  na- 
tion the  one  thing  that  we  must  not  do  is  to  bluff. 

The  unpardonable  thing  is  to  say  that  we  will  act  as 
a  big  nation  and  then  decline  to  take  the  necessary  steps 
to  make  the  words  good. 

Keep  on  building  and  maintaining  at  the  highest  point 
of  efficiency  the  United  States  Navy  or  quit  trying  to  be 
a  big  nation.  Do  one  or  the  other." 


(Address  at  Harvard  University,  June  28,  1905.) 
"Of  course  I  am  for  peace.    Of  course  every  President 
who  is  fit  to  be  President  must  be  for  peace.    But  I  am 
for  one  thing  before  peace;  I  am  for  righteousness  first 
and  then  peace." 

(Address  at  Richmond,  Va.,  October  18,  1905.) 
"Our  mission  in  the  world  should  be  one  of  peace,  but 
not  the  peace  of  cravens,  the  peace  granted  contemptu- 
ously to  those  who  purchase  it  by  surrendering  the  right. 
No!    Our  voice  must  be  effective  for  peace  because 


it  is  raised  for  righteousness  first  and  for  peace  only 
as  the  handmaiden  of  righteousness." 

(Annual  message  to  Congress,  December  3,  1906.) 

"It  must  ever  be  kept  in  mind  that  war  is  not  merely 
justifiable,  but  imperative  upon  honorable  men,  upon 
an  honorable  nation,  where  peace  can  only  be  obtained 
by  the  sacrifice  of  conscientious  conviction  or  of  na- 
tional welfare. 

Peace  is  normally  a  great  good,  and  normally  it  coin- 
cides with  righteousness;  but  it  is  righteousness  and  not 
peace  which  should  bind  the  conscience  of  a  nation,  as 
it  should  bind  the  conscience  of  an  individual;  and 
neither  a  nation  nor  an  individual  can  surrender  con- 
science to  another's  keeping. 

A  just  war  is  in  the  long  run  far  better  for  a  nation's 
soul  than  the  most  prosperous  peace  obtained  by  acqui- 
escence in  wrong  or  injustice." 


"Moreover,  though  it  is  criminal  for  a  nation  not  to 
prepare  for  war,  so  that  it  may  escape  the  dreadful 
consequences  of  being  defeated  in  war,  yet  it  must  al- 
ways be  remembered  that  even  to  be  defeated  in  war 
may  be  far  better  than  not  to  have  fought  at  all. 

As  has  been  well  and  finely  said,  a  beaten  nation  is  not 
necessarily  a  disgraced  nation;  but  the  nation  or  man  is 
disgraced  if  the  obligation  to  defend  the  right  is  shirked." 


(Address  to  the  graduating  class  of  the  Naval  Acad- 
emy, Annapolis,  June  23,  1905.) 

"What  we  desire  is  to  have  it  evident  that  this  Nation 
seeks  peace,  not  because  it  is  afraid,  but  because  it 
believes  in  the  eternal  laws  of  justice  and  right  living." 


(Annual  message  to  Congress,  December  5,  1905.) 


"A  wanton  or  useless  war,  or  a  war  of  mere  aggres-N 
sion — in  short,  any  war  begun  or  carried  on  in  a  con- 
scienceless spirit — is  to  be  condemned  as  a  peculiarly 
atrocious  crime  against  all  humanity. 

Our  aim  is  righteousness.  Peace  is  normally  the  hand- 
maiden of  righteousness;  but  when  peace  and  right- 
eousness conflict,  then  a  great  and  upright  people  can 
never  for  a  moment  hesitate  to  follow  the  path  which 
leads  toward  righteousness,  even  though  that  path  also 
leads  to  war." 


When  President  Wilson  put  into  operation  the  pre- 
cise policy  thus  condemned  in  advance,  what  choice  had 
Col.  Roosevelt  but  to  denounce  him?  Could  he,  on  the 
plea  that  all  must  "stand  by  the  President,"  abandon  the 
convictions  and  utterances  of  a  lifetime  and  defend  a 
policy  of  national  dishonor? 

"I  would  have  thrown  up  my  hat  for  Wilson,"  the 
Colonel  said  recently,  "if  only  he  had  given  me  the  chance 
by  acting  in  the  Presidency  as  a  sound  American  of 
rugged  strength  and  patriotism.  When  he  trailed  the 
honor  of  the  United  States  in  the  dust,  I,  as  a  good 
American,  had  no  alternative  but  to  oppose  him." 

So  long  ago  as  1905,  as  the  first  quotation  cited  above 
shows,  the  Colonel  specified  the  kind  of  war  that  Ger- 
many is  waging  as  a  "particularly  atrocious  crime  against 
all  humanity,"  and  defined  the  course  which,  in  his  opin- 
ion, the  Nation  should  not  for  a  moment  hesitate  to 
follow  in  regard  to  it. 


Not  in  words  alone  but  in  acts  does  Col.  Roosevelt's 
record  show  flat  disagreement  with  the  Wilson  policy 
in  international  controversies.  What  stronger  contrast 
could  there  be  to  President  Wilson's  methods  in  deal- 



ing  with  Germany  than  is  afforded  in  the  following 
incident,  which  is  described  in  a  recently  published  "Life 
of  John  Hay"? 


(From  the  "Life  of  John  Hay,"  by  William  Roscoe 
Thayer,  Vol.  II,  pp.  284,  285,  286.) 

"In  1902  one  of  the  periodic  outbreaks  to  which  Ven- 
ezuela was  addicted  gave  him  (Hay)  an  excuse  for  put- 
ting to  the  test  whether  or  not  the  United  States  would 
defend  the  Monroe  Doctrine  by  force  of  arms.  The 
Venezuelans  owed  the  Germans,  the  English,  and  the 
Italians  large  amounts,  which  they  had  put  off  paying 
until  their  creditors  began  to  suspect  that  they  never 
intended  to  pay  at  all.  The  Kaiser  apparently  counted 
on  the  resistance  of  the  Venezuelans  to  furnish  him  a 
pretext  for  occupying  one  or  more  of  their  seaboard 

In  order  to  disguise  the  fact  that  this  was  a  German 
undertaking,  he  looked  about  for  accomplices  who  would 
give  to  it  an  international  semblance.  It  happened  just 
at  that  time  that  Germany  found  herself  isolated,  as 
France  and  Russia  had  renewed  their  bond  of  friend- 
ship. England,  too,  always  suspicious  of  Russia,  and 
recently  irritated  by  France,  seemed  to  be  looking  for 
a  friend. 

By  offers  which  cannot  yet  be  made  public,  Germany 
persuaded  the  Tory  government  to  draw  closer  to  her. 
The  immediate  result  of  this  adventure  in  international 
coquetry  was  the  joint  demand  of  Germany  and  England 
on  Venezuela  to  pay  them  their  due.  Venezuela  pro- 

The  allies  then  sent  warships  and  established  what 
they  called  a  'pacific  blockade'  on  the  Venezuelan  ports 
(December  8,  1901).  During  the  following  year  Sec- 



retary  Hay  tried  to  persuade  the  blockaders  of  the  un- 
wisdom of  their  action.  He  persistently  called  their 
attention  to  the  fact  that  a  'pacific  blockade'  was  a  con- 
tradiction in  terms  and  that  its  enforcement  against  the 
rights  of  neutral  nations  could  not  be  tolerated.  He 
also  urged  arbitration. 

Germany  deemed  that  her  opportunity  had  now  come, 
and  on  December  8,  1902,  she  and  Great  Britain  sev- 
ered diplomatic  relations  with  Venezuela,  making  it  plain 
that  the  next  steps  would  be  the  bombardment  of  Ven- 
ezuelan towns  and  the  occupation  of  Venezuelan 

Here  came  the  test  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine.  If  the 
United  States  permitted  foreign  nations,  under  the  pre- 
tense of  supporting  their  creditors'  claims,  to  invade 
a  weak  debtor  State  by  naval  or  military  expedition, 
and  to  take  possession  of  its  territory,  what  would  be- 
come of  the  doctrine? 


At  this  point  the  direction  of  the  American  policy 
passed  from  Secretary  Hay  to  President  Roosevelt. 

England  and  Italy  were  willing  to  come  to  an  under- 
standing. Germany  refused.  She  stated  that  if  she  took 
possession  of  territory  such  possession  would  only  be 
'temporary';  but  such  possessions  easily  become  per- 
manent; and,  besides,  it  is  difficult  to  trust  the  guaran- 
ties which  may  be  treated  as  'scraps  of  paper.' 

President  Roosevelt  did  not  shirk  the  test.  Although 
his  action  has  never  been  officially  described,  there  is 
no  reason  now  for  not  describing  it. 

One  day,  when  the  crisis  was  at  its  height,  he  sum- 
moned to  the  White  House  Dr.  Holleben,  the  German 
ambassador,  and  told  him  that  unless  Germany  consented 
to  arbitrate,  the  American  squadron  under  Admiral 


Dewey  would  be  given  orders  by  noon  10  days  later  to 
proceed  to  the  Venezuelan  coast  and  prevent  any  taking 
possession  of  Venezuelan  territory. 

Dr.  Holleben  began  to  protest  that  his  imperial  master, 
having  once  refused  to  arbitrate,  could  not  change  his 
mind.  The  President  said  that  he  was  not  arguing  the 
question,  because  arguments  had  already  been  gone  over 
until  no  useful  purpose  would  be  served  by  repeating 
them;  he  was  simply  giving  information  which  the  am- 
bassador might  think  it  important  to  transmit  to  Berlin. 


A  week  passed  in  silence.  Then  Dr.  Holleben  again 
called  on  the  President,  but  said  nothing  of  the  Ven- 
ezuelan matter.  When  he  rose  to  go,  the  President 
asked  him  about  it,  and  when  he  stated  that  he  had 
received  nothing  from  his  Government,  the  President  in- 
formed him  in  substance  that  in  view  of  this  fact  Ad- 
miral Dewey  would  be  instructed  to  sail  a  day  earlier 
than  the  day  he,  the  President,  had  originally  mentioned. 

Much  perturbed,  the  ambassador  protested ;  the  Presi- 
dent informed  him  that  not  a  stroke  of  a  pen  had  been 
put  on  paper;  that  if  the  Emperor  would  agree  to  arbi- 
trate, he,  the  President,  would  heartily  praise  him  for 
such  action  and  would  treat  it  as  taken  on  German 
initiative;  but  that  within  48  hours  there  must  be  an 
offer  to  arbitrate  or  Dewey  would  sail  with  orders 

Within  36  hours  Dr.  Holleben  returned  to  the  White 
House  and  announced  to  President  Roosevelt  that  a 
dispatch  had  just  come  from  Berlin,  saying  that  the 
Kaiser  would  arbitrate. 

Neither  Admiral  Dewey  (who  with  an  American  fleet 
was  then  maneuvering  in  the  West  Indies)  nor  any  one 
else  knew  of  the  step  that  was  to  be  taken;  the  naval 


authorities  were  merely  required  to  be  in  readiness,  but 
were  not  told  what  for. 

On  the  announcement  that  Germany  had  consented  to 
arbitrate,  the  President  publicly  complimented  the  Kaiser 
on  being  so  staunch  an  advocate  of  arbitration. 

The  humor  of  this  was  probably  relished  more  in  the 
White  House  than  in  the  palace  at  Berlin." 

In  this  wise  the  German  Kaiser  learned  that  the  Mon- 
roe Doctrine  was  a  fact. 

There  was  no  note,  sharp  or  otherwise,  no  bluff  or 
bluster.  Simply  verbal  information  to  Germany  that  the 
step  contemplated  by  her  would  not  be  tolerated — that 
if  she  did  not  abandon  it  the  American  fleet  would  sail 
for  the  scene  of  action. 


Two  years  later,  on  a  much  smaller  scale,  another 
international  controversy  arose.  This  raised  the  simple 
question  of  whether  or  not  the  United  States  Govern- 
ment could  be  depended  upon  to  protect  its  citizens 
abroad  as  well  as  at  home.  This  case  is  recorded  also 
by  Mr.  Thayer. 


"In  June,  1904,  an  American  citizen,  Ion  H.  Perdicaris, 
was  seized  by  Raizuli,  a  Moroccan  bandit,  and  held  for 
ransom.  After  much  shilly-shallying,  and  threats  by 
Raizuli  that  he  would  kill  his  prisoner  unless  the  money 
was  speedily  paid,  Hay  cabled  to  Gummere,  American 
consul  at  Tangier,  on  June  22 : 

'We  want  Perdicaris  alive  or  Raizuli  dead/  adding 
that  Gummere  was  'not  to  commit  us  about  landing 
marines  or  seizing  customhouse.' 

In  his  diary  Hay  made  the  following  entries: 

'June  23.    My  telegram  to  Gummere  had  an  uncalled- 



for  success.  It  is  curious  how  a  concise  impropriety 
hits  the  public.' 

'June  24.  Gummere  telegraphs  that  he  expects  Per- 
dicaris  to-night' 

'June  27.    Perdicaris  wires  his  thanks.'  " 

"So  speedily,"  comments  William  Roscoe  Thayer,  in 
his  "Life  of  John  Hay,"  "did  even  a  brigand,  appar- 
ently safe  in  the  depths  of  Morocco,  recognize  the  note 
of  command  in  the  voice  from  over  seas." 


The  news  of  the  cable  message  was  published  on  June 
22.  The  Republican  national  convention,  which  on  the 
following  day  nominated  Roosevelt  for  President,  was 
in  session  at  the  time  in  Chicago.  The  correspondent  of 
the  New  York  Tribune  wrote  about  it  as  follows : 

"  'Perdicaris  alive  or  Raizuli  dead'  went  through  the 
convention  like  an  electric  thrill,  and  it  was  more  talked 
about  at  night  than  any  feature  of  the  day's  work.  The 
prevailing  impression  was  that  if  Secretary  Hay  had 
sent  the  telegram  it  was  after  consultation  with  the 
President,  and  that  there  must  have  been  ample  jus- 
tification. Delegates  from  all  sections  of  the  country 
discussed  it  in  all  its  potential  phases,  and  in  almost  every 
instance  warmly  commended  it. 

"  'It  is  pithy,  pungent,  and  peremptory.  I  like  it,  and 
so  do  the  people,'  said  Senator  McComas,  of  Maryland. 

"  'It  is  the  kind  of  a  telegram,'  said  Senator  Spooner, 
of  Wisconsin,  'that  would  provoke  rapturous  applause  in 
any  political  convention.  It  touches  a  popular  chord. 
This  Government  is  bound  to  protect  its  citizens  abroad 
as  well  as  at  home.' 

"  'The  American  people  will  not  back  down  on  a  mes- 
sage of  that  kind,'  said  Representative  Grosvenor,  of 
Ohio.  'The  people  admire  a  declaration  of  that  kind 



when  the  justification  is  sufficient.  It  may  not  be  couched 
exactly  in  diplomatic  words,  but  its  meaning  is  unmistak- 
able. The  people  are  quick  to  respond  when  their  pa- 
triotism is  appealed  to.  The  Morocco  bandit  will  find 
that  there  is  a  vigorous  and  united  sentiment  supporting 
the  President  and  Secretary  Hay  in  the  stand  they  have 

"'It  was  good,  hot  stuff,  and  echoed  my  sentiments,' 
said  Congressman  Dwight,  of  New  York.  'The  people 
want  an  administration  that  will  stand  by  its  citizens, 
even  if  it  takes  a  fleet  to  do  it.' 

"  'It  was  magnificent — magnificent !'  said  Senator  De- 
pew.  'Every  right-minded  American  will  heartily  in- 
dorse Mr.  Hay's  strong  stand.' 

"  'Do  I  like  it  ?'  exclaimed  W.  A.  Elstun,  of  Kansas, 
one  of  the  delegates.  'Bet  your  bottom  dollar  I  like  it. 
Roosevelt  is  behind  that  cable  message  to  that  fine  old 
body  snatcher,  Raisuli.  Out  in  Kansas  we  believe  in 
keeping  the  peace  but  in  fighting  against  the  wrong. 
Roosevelt  and  Hay  know  what  they  are  doing.  Our 
people  like  courage.  We'll  stand  for  anything  those  two 
men  do.'  " 

Commenting  on  the  message  a  few  days  later,  after 
Perdicaris  had  been  released,  the  Tribune  said : 

"It  is  easy  to  sneer  at  it.  A  dog  may  bay  at  the  moon. 
But  every  rational  man  knows  that  a  nation  that  does  not 
protect  its  own  citizens  is  unworthy  of  the  name  of  Gov- 
ernment, and  that,  moreover,  the  only  way  to  make  citi- 
zenship respected  and  secure  is  to  make  outrage  upon  it 


The  quoted  comments  by  American  statesmen  reflect 
accurately  the  old-time  American  view  of  what  the  duty 
of  a  national  administration  is  in  cases  affecting  the  lives 



of  American  citizens  abroad.  It  accords  with  the  view 
of  that  duty  which  Theodore  Roosevelt  holds  and  ex- 
pounds to-day,  as  he  has  always  held  and  expounded  it. 
It  is  diametrically  opposed  to  the  policy  pursued  by  the 
Wilson  administration.  In  both  the  instances  above  re- 
ferred to  the  outcome  was  not  war,  but  peace  with  honor. 

From  the  moment  he  became  Assistant  Secretary  of 
the  Navy  in  1897,  down  to  the  time  when  he  retired  from 
the  Presidency  in  1909,  in  all  his  public  addresses,  in  all 
his  annual  messages  to  Congress,  Col.  Roosevelt  advo- 
cated with  tireless  energy  preparedness  for  war  as  the 
surest  guaranty  for  peace.  For  the  information  of  Sec- 
retary Garrison  a  partial  collection  of  these  utterances, 
beginning  with  those  of  his  annual  messages,  is  appended  : 


(First  annual  message  to  Congress  Dec.  7,  1901.) 
"The  work  of  upbuilding  the  Navy  must  be  steadily 
continued.  No  one  point  of  our  policy,  foreign  or  do- 
mestic, is  more  important  than  this  to  the  honor  and 
material  welfare,  and  above  all,  to  the  peace  of  our  Na- 
tion in  the  future." 


"It  was  forethought  and  preparation  which  secured  us 
the  overwhelming  triumph  in  1898.     If  we  fail  to  show 
forethought  and  preparation  now  there  may  come  a  time 
when  disaster  will  befall  us  instead  of  triumph." 
(Second  annual  message  to  Congress,  Dec.  2,  1902.) 
"There  should  be  no  halt  in  the  work  of  building  up  the 
Navy,  providing  every  year  additional  fighting  craft." 


"A  good  Navy  is  not  a  provocation  to  war.    It  is  the 
surest  guaranty  of  peace. 



The  refusal  to  maintain  such  a  Navy  would  invite 
trouble,  and  if  trouble  came  would  insure  disaster. 

Fatuous  self-complacency  or  vanity,  or  shortsighted- 
ness in  refusing  to  prepare  for  danger,  is  both  foolish 
and  wicked  in  such  a  Nation  as  ours,  and  past  experience 
has  shown  that  such  fatuity  in  refusing  to  recognize  or 
prepare  for  any  crisis  in  advance  is  usually  succeeded  by 
a  mad  panic  of  hysterical  fear  once  the  crisis  has  actually 


"The  Army  has  been  reduced  to  the  minimum  allowed 
by  law.  It  is  very  small  for  the  size  of  the  Nation,  and 
most  certainly  should  be  kept  at  the  highest  point  of  effi- 


"I  urgently  call  your  attention  to  the  need  of  passing  a 
bill  providing  for  a  general  staff  and  for  the  reorganiza- 
tion of  the  supply  department  on  the  lines  of  the  bill  pro- 
posed by  the  Secretary  of  War  last  year." 


(Third  annual  message  to  Congress,  Dec.  7,  1903.) 
"I  heartily  congratulate  the  Congress  upon  the  steady 
progress  in  building  up  the  American  Navy.    We  can  not 
afford  a  let-up  in  this  great  work.    To  stand  still  means 
to  go  back." 


"The  effect  of  the  law  providing  a  general  staff  for  the 
Army  and  for  the  more  effective  use  of  the  National 
Guard  has  been  excellent.    Great  improvement  has  been 
made  in  the  efficiency  of  our  Army  in  recent  years. 
We  should  not  rest  satisfied  with  what  has  been  done." 
(Fourth  annual  message  to  Congress,  Dec.  4,  1904.) 
"I  most  earnestly  recommend  that  there  be  no  halt  in 
the  work  of  upbuilding  the  American  Navy." 




"Our  voice  is  now  potent  for  peace,  and  is  so  potent 
because  we  are  not  afraid  of  war.  But  our  protestations 
upon  behalf  of  peace  would  neither  receive  nor  deserve 
the  slightest  attention  if  we  were  impotent  to  make  them 

It  is  very  important  that  the  officers  of  the  Army  should 
be  accustomed  to  handle  their  men  in  masses,  as  it  is 
also  important  that  the  National  Guard  of  the  several 
States  should  be  accustomed  to  actual  field  maneuvering, 
especially  in  connection  with  the  regulars." 


(Fifth  annual  message  to  Congress,  Dec.  5,  1905.) 

"We  have  most  wisely  continued  for  a  number  of  years 
to  build  up  our  Navy,  and  it  has  now  reached  a  fairly 
high  standard  of  efficiency.  This  standard  of  efficiency 
must  not  only  be  maintained,  but  increased. 

We  now  have  a  very  small  Army — indeed,  one  well- 
nigh  infinitesimal  when  compared  with  the  army  of  any 
other  large  nation. 

I  do  not  believe  that  any  army  in  the  world  has  a  better 
average  of  enlisted  men  or  a  better  type  of  junior  officer, 
but  the  Army  should  be  trained  to  act  effectively  in  mass." 

(Sixth  annual  message  to  Congress,  Dec.  3,  1906.) 

"The  United  States  Navy  is  the  surest  guarantee  of 
peace  which  this  country  possesses. 

I  do  not  ask  that  we  increase  our  Navy.  I  ask  merely 
that  it  be  maintained  at  its  present  strength,  and  this  can 
be  done  only  if  we  replace  the  obsolete  outworn  ships  by 
new  and  good  ones,  the  equals  of  any  afloat  in  any  navy. 

In  both  the  Army  and  Navy  there  is  urgent  need  that 
everything  possible  should  be  done  to  maintain  the  high- 
est standard  for  the  personnel,  alike  as  regards  the  offi- 
cers and  the  enlisted  men." 




"The  little  Republic  of  Switzerland  offers  us  an  excel- 
lent example  in  all  matters  connected  with  building  up 
an  efficient  citizen  soldiery." 


(Seventh  annual  message  to  Congress,  Dec.  3,  1907.) 

"To  build  one  battleship  of  the  best  and  most  advanced 
type  a  year  would  hardly  keep  our  fleet  up  to  its  present 
force.  This  is  not  enough.  In  my  judgment  we  should 
this  year  provide  for  four  battleships. 

Again  and  again  in  the  past  our  little  Regular  Army 
has  rendered  service  literally  vital  to  the  country  and  it 
may  at  any  time  have  to  do  so  in  the  future. 

Its  standard  of  efficiency  and  instruction  is  higher  now 
than  ever  in  the  past.  But  it  is  too  small.  There  are  not 
enough  officers,  and  it  is  impossible  to  secure  enough 
enlisted  men." 


"We  should  maintain  in  peace  a  fairly  complete  skele- 
ton of  a  large  army. 

In  particular  it  is  essential  that  we  should  possess  a 
number  of  extra  officers  trained  in  peace  to  perform  effi- 
ciently the  duties  urgently  required  upon  the  breaking  out 
of  war." 

From  public  utterances  made  by  Col.  Roosevelt  at  vari- 
ous points  throughout  the  country  during  the  same  period, 
the  following  instructive  citations  are  taken,  my  desire 
being  to  have  Secretary  Garrison's  information  thorough 
and  complete : 


(Address  as  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Navy  before  the 
Naval  War  College,  June,  1897.) 



"We  must  make  up  our  minds  once  for  all  to  the  fact 
that  it  is  too  late  to  make  ready  for  war  when  the  fight 
is  once  begun. 

There  must  be  adequate  preparation  for  conflict,  if 
conflict  is  not  to  mean  disaster.  Furthermore,  this  prep- 
aration must  take  the  shape  of  an  efficient  fighting  navy." 


"In  public  as  in  private  life,  a  bold  front  tends  to  insure 
peace  and  not  strife. 

If  we  possess  a  formidable  navy,  small  is  the  chance, 
indeed,  that  we  shall  ever  be  dragged  into  a  war  to  uphold 
the  Monroe  Doctrine.  If  we  do  not  possess  such  a  navy, 
war  may  be  forced  on  us  at  any  time." 


"We  ask  that  the  work  of  upbuilding  the  Navy  and  of 
putting  the  United  States  where  it  should  be  put  among 
the  maritime  powers  go  forward  without  a  break.  We 
ask  this  not  in  the  interest  of  war,  but  in  the  interest  of 


"In  all  our  history  there  has  never  been  a  time  when 
preparedness  for  war  was  any  menace  to  peace. 

On  the  contrary,  again  and  again  we  have  owed  peace 
to  the  fact  that  we  were  prepared  for  war." 


(Address  to  the  graduating  class,  Naval  Academy,  An- 
napolis, May  2,  1902.) 

"We  all  of  us  earnestly  hope  that  the  occasion  for  war 
may  never  arise,  but  if  it  has  to  come,  then  this  Nation 
must  win ;  and  in  winning  the  prime  factor  must  of  neces- 
sity be  the  United  States  Navy.  If  the  Navy  fails  us, 
then  we  are  doomed  to  defeat." 


"In  battle  the  only  shots  that  count  are  those  that  hit, 


and  marksmanship  is  a  matter  of  long  practice  and  intel- 
ligent reasoning." 


"A  navy's  efficiency  in  a  war  depends  mainly  upon  its 
preparedness  at  the  outset  of  that  war.  We  are  not  to 
be  excused  as  a  nation  if  there  is  not  such  preparedness 
of  our  Navy." 


(Speech  at  Chamber  of  Commerce  banquet,  New 
York,  Nov.  n,  1902.) 

"We  need  to  keep  in  a  condition  of  preparedness,  espe- 
cially as  regards  our  Navy,  not  because  we  want  war,  but 
because  we  desire  to  stand  with  those  whose  plea  for 
peace  is  listened  to  with  respectful  attention." 


(Speech  at  San  Francisco,  May  14,  1903.) 

"Remember  that  after  the  war  has  begun  it  is  too  late 
to  improvise  a  navy.  A  naval  war  is  two-thirds  settled  in 
advance,  at  least  two-thirds,  because  it  is  mainly  settled 
by  the  preparation  which  has  gone  on  for  years  preceding 
its  outbreak.  We  won  at  Manila  because  the  shipbuilders 
of  the  country,  under  the  wise  provisions  of  Congress,  had 
for  15  years  before  been  preparing  the  Navy." 

(Speech  in  Brooklyn,  May  30,  1905.) 

"If  our  Navy  is  good  enough,  we  have  a  long  career  of 
peace  before  us.  The  only  likelihood  of  trouble  ever  com- 
ing to  us  as  a  Nation  will  arise  if  we  let  our  Navy  become 
too  small  or  inefficient." 



"Every  warship  which  is  not  first  class  in  efficiency  be- 
comes in  battle  not  a  help  to  the  Nation,  but  a  menace  to 
the  national  honor." 




(Speech  at  the  banquet  of  the  National  Convention  for 
the  Extension  of  the  Foreign  Commerce  of  the  United 
States,  Washington,  Jan.  16,  1907.) 

"Remember, gentlemen,  that  the  prime  use  of  the  United 
States  Navy  is  to  avert  war.  The  United  States  Navy 
is  the  cheapest  insurance  Uncle  Sam  has.  It  is  the  surest 
guaranty  against  our  ever  being  drawn  into  war ;  and  the 
guaranty  is  effective  in  proportion  as  the  Navy  is  effi- 


(Speech  at  Cairo,  111.,  Oct.  3,  19x57.) 
"It  is  utterly  impossible  to  improvise  a  makeshift  navy 
under  conditions  of  modern  warfare." 


"The  Navy  must  be  built  and  all  its  training  given  in 
time  of  peace.  When  once  war  has  broken  out  it  is  too 
late  to  do  anything." 


(Speech  at  Fargo,  N.  Dak.,  Apr.  7,  1903.) 

"I  believe  that  no  other  great  country  has  such  fine 
natural  material  for  volunteer  soldiers  as  we  have,  and  it 
is  the  obvious  duty  of  the  Nation  and  of  the  States  to 
make  such  provision  as  will  enable  the  volunteer  soldiery 
to  be  organized  with  all  possible  rapidity  and  efficiency 
in  time  of  war;  and,  furthermore,  to  help  in  every  way 
the  National  Guard  in  time  of  peace." 

It  is  quite  plain  from  these  various  utterances  in  mes- 
sages and  addresses  that  Col.  Roosevelt  has  been  advo- 
cating for  nearly  20  years  the  same  kind  of  efficient  army 
and  navy  as  he  is  advocating  to-day. 

"What  I  ask  for,"  he  said  recently,  "is  a  big  efficient 
navy,  and  a  small  efficient  army  of  a  quarter  of  a  million 



men,  and  back  of  the  Army  a  nation  of  freemen  trained 
to  the  use  of  arms." 

So  also  with  the  danger  of  militarism  and  other  argu- 
ments of  the  peace-at-any-price  advocates.  His  opinions 
of  these  to-day  are  the  same  that  he  has  always  held,  as 
a  few  citations  will  show : 


(Annual  message  to  Congress,  Dec.  3,  1907.) 

"Not  only  there  is  not  now,  but  there  never  has  been, 

any  other  nation  in  the  world  so  wholly  free  from  the 

evils  of  militarism  as  is  ours." 


"There  are,  of  course,  foolish  people  who  denounce  any 
care  of  the  Army  or  Navy  as  militarism,  but  I  do  not 
think  that  these  people  are  numerous. 

Declamation  against  militarism  has  no  mo»e  serious 
place  in  an  earnest  and  intelligent  movement  for  right- 
eousness in  this  country  than  declamation  against  the 
worship  of  Baal  or  Ashtaroth." 


(Speech  before  the  Hamilton  Club,  Apr.  10,  1899.) 

"If  in  1861  the  men  who  loved  the  Union  had  believed 
that  peace  was  the  end  of  all  things,  and  war  and  strife 
the  worst  of  all  things,  and  had  acted  up  to  their  belief, 
we  would  have  saved  hundreds  of  thousands  of  lives;  we 
would  have  saved  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars. 

Moreover,  besides  saving  all  the  blood  and  treasure  we 
then  lavished,  we  would  have  prevented  the  heartbreak 
of  many  women,  the  dissolution  of  many  homes,  and  we 
would  have  spared  the  country  those  months  of  gloom 
and  shame  when  it  seemed  as  if  our  Armies  marched  only 
to  defeat. 

We  could  have  avoided  all  this  suffering  simply  by 
shrinking  from  strife.  And  if  we  had  thus  avoided  it,  we 



would  have  shown  that  we  were  weaklings  and  that  we 
were  unfit  to  stand  among  the  great  nations  of  the  earth. 
Thank  God  for  the  iron  in  the  blood  of  our  fathers,  the 
men  who  upheld  the  wisdom  of  Lincoln  and  bore  sword 
or  rifle  in  the  Armies  of  Grant  and  Lee !  Let  us,  the  chil- 
dren of  the  men  who  proved  themselves  equal  to  the 
mighty  days — let  us,  the  children  of  the  men  who  carried 
the  great  Civil  War  to  a  triumphant  conclusion,  praise 
the  God  of  our  fathers  that  the  ignoble  counsels  of  peace 
were  rejected ;  that  the  suffering  and  loss,  the  blackness 
of  sorrow  and  despair,  were  unflinchingly  faced  and  the 
years  of  strife  endured;  for  in  the  end  the  slave  was 
freed,  the  Union  restored,  and  the  mighty  American  Re- 
public placed  once  more  as  a  helmeted  queen  among 


(From  Life  of  Thomas  H.  Benton,  written  in  1887.) 
"A  class  of  professional  noncombatants  is  as  hurtful 
to  the  healthy  growth  of  a  nation  as  a  class  of  fire  eaters, 
for  a  weakness  or  folly  is  nationally  as  bad  as  a  vice,  or 
worse.  No  man  who  is  not  willing  to  bear  arms  and  to 
fight  for  his  rights  can  give  a  good  reason  why  he  should 
be  entitled  to  the  privilege  of  living  in  a  free  community." 


(From  the  "War  with  the  United  States,  1812-1815," 
written  for  the  English  History  of  the  Royal  Navy  in 

"Both  Britain  and  America  have  produced  men  of  the 
'peace-at-any-price'  pattern,  and  in  America,  in  one  great 
crisis  at  least,  these  men  cost  the  Nation  more  in  blood 
and  wealth  than  the  political  leaders  most  recklessly  indif- 
ferent to  war  have  ever  cost  it." 




(Letter  to  Carl  Schurz,  Sept.  8,  1905,  published  in 
Autobiography. ) 

"I  thank  you  for  your  congratulations  [upon  the  con- 
clusion of  peace  between  Japan  and  Russia].  If  I  had 
been  known  as  one  of  the  conventional  type  of  peace 
advocates,  I  could  have  done  nothing  whatever  in  bring- 
ing about  peace  now,  I  would  be  powerless  in  the  future 
to  accomplish  anything,  and  I  would  not  have  been  able 
to  help  confer  the  boons  upon  Cuba,  the  Philippines, 
Porto  Rico,  and  Panama,  brought  about  by  our  action 

If  this  country  had  not  fought  the  Spanish  War,  if 
we  had  failed  to  take  the  action  we  did  about  Panama, 
all  mankind  would  have  been  the  loser." 


"While  the  Turks  were  butchering  the  Armenians  the 
European  powers  kept  the  peace,  and  thereby  added  a 
burden  of  infamy  to  the  nineteenth  century,  for  in  keep- 
ing the  peace  a  greater  number  of  lives  were  lost  than  in 
any  European  war  since  Napoleon,  and  these  lives  were 
those  of  women  and  children  as  well  as  of  men;  while 
the  moral  degradation,  the  brutality  inflicted  and  endured, 
the  aggregate  hideous  wrong  done,  surpassed  that  of  any 
war  of  which  we  have  record  in  modern  times." 


"Unjust  war  is  dreadful;  a  just  war  may  be  the  high- 
est duty.  To  have  the  best  nations,  the  free  and  civilized 
nations,  disarm  and  leave  the  despotisms  and  barbar- 
isms with  great  military  force  would  be  a  calamity  com- 
pared to  which  the  calamities  caused  by  all  the  wars  of 
the  nineteenth  century  would  be  trivial." 


(In  the  Outlook,  September  9,  1911.) 


"Our  chief  usefulness  to  humanity  rests  on  our  com- 
bining power  with  high  purpose;  and  high  purpose  by 
itself  is  utterly  useless  if  the  power  to  put  it  into  effect 
is  lacking." 


"In  the  history  of  our  country  the  peace  advocates  who 
treat  peace  as  more  than  righteousness  will  never  be, 
and  never  have  been,  of  service,  either  to  the  nation  or  to 

The  true  lovers  of  peace,  the  men  who  have  really 
helped  onward  the  movement  for  peace,  have  been  those 
who  followed,  even  though  afar  off,  in  the  footsteps  of 
Washington  and  Lincoln  and  stood  for  righteousness  as 
the  supreme  end  of  national  life." 


(In  the  Outlook,  November  14,  1911.) 

"A  complete  absence  of  militarism  in  China  and  China's 
effort  to  rely  purely  on  pacific  measures  in  dealing  with 
all  foreign  powers  have  not  only  caused  it  to  lose  various 
Provinces  to  various  foreign  powers  within  the  last  few 
decades,  but  have  had  not  the  smallest  effect  in  saving 
it  from  tyranny,  misgovernment,  and  the  most  far- 
reaching  economic  misery  at  home ;  and,  moreover,  have 
had  the  effect  of  depriving  it  of  means  of  keeping  order 
within  its  own  boundaries." 

Col.  Roosevelt's  poor .  opinion  of  the  usefulness  of 
arbitration  treaties  when  unbacked  by  force  is  not  the 
outgrowth  of  developments  of  the  present  war,  but,  like 
his  opinions  on  the  other  vital  questions  of  national  pol- 
icy, is  a  matter  of  long-standing  conviction: 


(Address  to  the  graduating  class  of  the  Naval  Acad- 
emy, Annapolis,  January  30,  1905.) 



"The  adoption  of  those  (arbitration)  treaties  by  them- 
selves would  not  bring  peace.  We  are  a  good  many 
years  short  of  the  millennium  yet;  and  for  the  present 
and  immediate  future  we  can  rest  assured  that  the  word 
of  the  man  who  is  suspected  of  desiring  peace  because 
he  is  afraid  of  war  will  count  for  little." 


(Address,  as  Assistant  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  before 
the  Naval  War  College,  June,  1897.) 

"Arbitration  is  an  excellent  thing,  but  ultimately  those 
who  wish  to  see  this  country  at  peace  with  foreign  na- 
tions will  be  wise  if  they  place  reliance  upon  a  first- 
class  fleet  of  first-class  battleships  rather  than  on  any 
arbitration  treaty  which  the  wit  of  men  can  devise." 

(Address  at  dinner  of  the  Sons  of  the  American  Revo- 
lution, New  York,  March  17,  1905.) 

"I  know  one  excellent  gentleman  in  Congress  who  said 
he  preferred  arbitration  to  battleships.  So  do  I.  But 
suppose  the  other  man  does  not?  I  want  to  have  the 
battleships  as  a  provocative  for  arbitration  so  far  as 
the  other  man  is  concerned. 

We  have  now  got  our  Navy  up  to  a  good  point.  We 
have  built  and  are  building  40  armored  ships.  For 
a  year  or  two,  or  two  or  three  years,  to  come  what  we 
need  to  do  is  to  provide  for  the  personnel  of  those  ships 
and  to  secure  the  very  highest  standard  of  efficiency  in 
handling  them,  singly  and  in  squadrons;  above  all,  for 
handling  the  great  guns." 


(Annual  message  to  Congress,  December  3,  1906.) 
"The  chance  for  the  settlement  of  disputes  peacefully, 
by  arbitration,  now  depends  mainly  upon  the  possession 



by  the  nations  that  mean  to  do  right  of  sufficient  armed 
strength  to  make  their  purpose  effective." 


(Annual  message  to  Congress,  December  3,  1907.) 
"It  is  evident  (from  the  failure  of  The  Hague  confer- 
ence to  take  action  on  the  limitation  of  armament)  that 
it  is  folly  for  this  Nation  to  base  any  hope  of  securing 
peace  on  any  international  agreement  as  to  the  limitation 
of  armaments.  Such  being  the  fact,  it  would  be  most 
unwise  to  stop  the  upbuilding  of  our  Navy." 


(Address  before  the  Nobel  Prize  Committee,  Chris- 
tiania,  Norway,  accepting  the  Nobel  Peace  Prize,  May 
5,  I9io.) 

"All  really  civilized  communities  should  have  effective 
arbitration  treaties  among  themselves.  I  believe  that 
these  treaties  can  cover  almost  all  questions  liable  to 
arise  between  such  nations,  if  they  are  drawn  with  the 
explicit  agreement  that  each  contracting  party  will  re- 
spect the  other's  territory  and  its  absolute  sovereignty 
within  that  territory,  and  the  equally  explicit  agreement 
that  (aside  from  the  very  rare  cases  where  the  nation's 
honor  is  vitally  concerned)  all  other  possible  subjects 
of  controversy  will  be  submitted  to  arbitration.  Such  a 
treaty  would  insure  peace  unless  one  party  deliberately 
violated  it.  Of  course,  as  yet,  there  is  no  adequate  safe- 
guard against  such  deliberate  violation,  but  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  sufficient  number  of  these  treaties  would 
go  a  long  way  toward  creating  a  world  opinion  which 
would  finally  find  expression  in  the  provision  of  methods 
to  forbid  or  punish  such  violation." 


"Something  should  be  done  as  soon  as  possible  to  check 
the  growth  of  armaments,  especially  naval  armaments, 



by  international  agreement.  No  one  power  could  or 
should  act  by  itself ;  for  it  is  eminently  undesirable,  from 
the  standpoint  of  the  peace  of  righteousness,  that  a 
power  which  really  does  believe  in  peace  should  place  it- 
self at  the  mercy  of  some  rival  which  may  at  bottom 
have  no  such  belief  and  no  intention  of  acting  on  it. 

Finally,  it  would  be  a  master  stroke  if  those  great  pow- 
ers honestly  bent  on  peace  would  form  a  league  of  peace, 
not  only  to  keep  the  peace  among  themselves  but  to 
prevent,  by  force  if  necessary,  its  being  broken  by 


"The  supreme  difficulty  in  connection  with  developing 
the  peace  work  of  The  Hague  arises  from  the  lack  of 
any  executive  power,  of  any  police  power,  to  enforce 
the  decrees  of  the  court. 

Each  nation  must  keep  well  prepared  to  defend  itself 
until  the  establishment  of  some  form  of  international 
police  power,  competent  and  willing  to  prevent  violence 
as  between  nations. 

As  things  are  now,  such  power  to  command  peace 
throughout  the  world  could  only  be  assured  by  some  com- 
bination between  those  great  nations  which  sincerely 
desire  peace  and  have  no  thought  themselves  of  com- 
mitting aggressions." 


"The  combination  might  at  first  be  only  to  secure  peace 
within  certain  definite  limits  and  certain  definite  condi- 
tions, but  the  ruler  or  statesman  who  should  bring  about 
such  a  combination  would  have  earned  his  place  in  his- 
tory for  all  time  and  his  title  to  the  gratitude  of  all 


(In  the  Outlook,  November  4,  1911.) 


"This  war  (between  Italy  and  Turkey)  proves  the  ut- 
ter inefficiency  of  paper  treaties  when  they  are  unbacked 
by  force ;  the  utter  folly  of  those  who  believe  that  these 
paper  treaties  accomplish  any  useful  purpose  in  the 
present  stage  of  the  world's  development  when  there 
is  no  force  behind  them;  and,  finally,  not  merely  the 
folly  but  the  iniquity  of  making  treaties  which  there  is 
no  real  intention  of  putting  into  effect." 


"It  would  be  not  merely  foolish  but  wicked  for  us  as 
a  Nation  to  agree  to  arbitrate  any  dispute  that  affects 
our  vital  interest  or  our  independence  or  honor,  be- 
cause such  an  agreement  would  amount  on  our  part  to 
a  covenant  to  abandon  our  duty,  to  an  agreement  to 
surrender  the  rights  of  the  American  people  about  un- 
known matters  at  unknown  times  in  the  future. 

Such  an  agreement  would  be  wicked  if  kept,  and  yet 
to  break  it — as  it  undoubtedly  would  be  broken  if  the 
occasion  arose — would  be  only  less  shameful  than  keep- 
ing it." 

Even  on  the  subject  of  hyphenated  Americans,  the 
views  which  Col.  Roosevelt  has  been  expressing  since 
the  outbreak  of  the  European  War  are  not  new.  He 
uttered  the  same  sentiments  more  than  20  years  ago  and 
has  reiterated  them  frequently  since. 


(From  "True  Americanism,"  published  April,  1894.) 
"We  welcome  the  German  or  the  Irishman  who  becomes 
an  American.  We  have  no  use  for  the  German  or  Irish- 
man who  remains  such.  We  do  not  wish  German- 
Americans  and  Irish-Americans  who  figure  as  such  in 
our  social  and  political  life;  we  want  only  Americans, 
and,  provided  they  are  such,  we  do  not  care  whether 



they  are  of  native  or  of  Irish  or  of  German  ancestry. 
We  have  no  room  in  any  healthy  American  community 
for  a  German- American  vote  or  an  Irish- American  vote, 
and  it  is  contemptible  demagogy  to  put  planks  into 
any  party  platform  with  the  purpose  of  catching  such 
a  vote.  We  have  no  room  for  any  people  who  do  not 
act  and  vote  simply  as  Americans  and  as  nothing  else." 


(Speech  at  New  Mexico,  May  5,  1903.) 
"There  were  men  in  my  regiment  (in  the  Spanish  War) 
who  themselves  were  born  in  England,  Ireland,  Ger- 
many, or  Scandinavia,  but  there  was  not  a  man,  no 
matter  what  his  creed,  what  his  birthplace,  what  his 
ancestry,  who  was  not  an  American  and  nothing  else." 


(Speech  at  Butte,  Mont,  May  27,  1903.) 

"If  we  are  to  preserve  this  Republic  as  it  was  founded, 
as  it  was  handed  down  to  us  by  the  men  of  sixty-one 
to  sixty-five,  and  as  it  is  and  will  be,  we  must  draw 
the  line  never  between  section  and  section,  never  between 
creed  and  creed,  thrice  never  between  class  and  class; 
but  along  the  line  of  conduct,  the  line  that  separates 
the  good  citizen  wherever  he  may  be  found  from  the 
bad  citizen  wherever  he  may  be  found." 


(Message  to  Congress,  December  6,  1904.) 
"Good  Americanism  is  a  matter  of  heart,  of  conscience, 
of  lofty  aspiration,  of  sound  common  sense,  but  not  of 
birthplace  or  of  creed.  The  medal  of  honor,  the  high- 
est prize  to  be  won  by  those  who  serve  in  the  Army 
and  the  Navy  of  the  United  States,  decorates  men  born 
here,  and  it  also  decorates  men  born  in  Great  Britain 
and  Ireland,  in  Germany,  in  Scandinavia,  in  France,  and 
doubtless  in  other  countries  also." 




(Speech  at  dinner  of  the  Friendly  Sons  of  St.  Pat- 
rick, New  York,  March  17,  1905.) 

"My  fellow  countrymen,  I  have  spoken  to-night  espe- 
cially of  what  has  been  done  for  this  Nation  of  ou/s 
by  men  of  Irish  blood.  But,  after  all,  in  speaking  to 
you  or  to  any  body  of  my  fellow  citizens,  no  matter 
from  what  Old  World  country  they  themselves  or  their 
forefathers  may  have  come,  the  great  thing  is  to  re- 
member that  we  are  all  of  us  Americans.  Let  us  keep 
our  pride  in  the  stocks  from  which  we  have  sprung, 
but  let  us  show  that  pride,  not  by  holding  aloof  from 
one  another,  least  of  all  by  preserving  the  Old  World 
jealousies  and  bitternesses,  but  by  joining  in  a  spirit  of 
generous  rivalry  to  see  which  can  do  most  for  our  great 
common  country." 

Finally,  in  regard  to  the  Monroe  Doctrine  and  the 
necessity  of  upholding  it  by  force  in  case  of  need,  Col. 
Roosevelt  has  for  years  held  and  advocated  no  uncer- 
tain views. 



(At  Augusta,  Me.,  August  26,  1902.) 

"The  Monroe  Doctrine  is  simply  a  statement  of  our 
very  firm  belief  that  on  this  continent  the  nations  now 
existing  here  must  be  le'ft  to  work  out  their  own  des* 
tinies  among  themselves  and  that  the  continent  is  not 
longer  to  be  regarded  as  colonizing  ground  for  any  Euro- 
pean nation. 

The  only  power  on  the  continent  that  can  make  that 
doctrine  effective  is,  of  course,  ourselves,  for  in  the 
world  as  it  is,  gentlemen,  the  nation  which  advances  a 
given  doctrine  likely  to  interfere  in  any  way  with  other 



nations  must  possess  power  to  back  it  up  if  she  wishes 
the  doctrine  to  be  respected." 


(Speech  at  Chicago,  April  2,  1903.) 

"I  believe  in  the  Monroe  Doctrine  with  all  my  heart 
and  soul.  I  am  convinced  that  the  immense  majority 
of  our  fellow  countrymen  so  believe  in  it;  but  I  would 
infinitely  prefer  to  see  us  abandon  it  than  to  see  us  put 
it  forward  and  bluster  about  it,  and  yet  fail  to  build 
up  the  efficient  fighting  strength  which  in  the  last  resort 
can  alone  make  it  respected  by  any  strong  foreign  power 
whose  interest  it  may  ever  happen  to  be  to  violate  it." 

"There  is  a  homely  old  adage  which  runs :  'Speak  softly 
and  carry  a  big  stick;  you  will  go  far.'  If  the  Ameri- 
can Nation  will  speak  softly,  and  yet  build,  and  keep 
at  a  pitch  of  the  highest  training,  a  thoroughly  efficient 
Navy,  the  Monroe  Doctrine  will  go  far." 


UA      Roosevelt,  Theodore 

23         Fear  God  and  take  your  own 

R7      part